we'll hear from house republicans, the white house, presidential candidate m.i.t. m.i.t. and then -- mitt romney and then senate democrats. republicans said today that they try to overturn provisions in the affordable care act that require own insurance plans to pay for contraception. they want exceptions made for religious affiliated employers. house speaker john boehner commented on the issue on the house floor. address the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the speaker: my colleagues, in recent days americans of every faith and political persuasion have mobilized in objection to a rule put forward by the obama administration that constitutes an unambiguous attack on religious freedom in our country. this rule would require faith-based employers including catholic charities, schools, universities and hospitals to provide services they believe are immoral.

those services include sterilization and abortion -inducing drugs, devices and contraception. in an -- in imposing this requirement, the federal government has drifted dangerously beyond its constitutional boundaries, encoaching -- encroaching on religious freedom in a man that are affects millions of americans and harms some of our nation's most vital institutions. if the president does not reverse the department's attack on religious freedom, then the congress, acting on behalf of the american people, and the constitution, that we're sworn to uphold and defend, must. the house will approach this matter fairly and deliberately through regular order and appropriate legislative channels. because it has primary jurisdiction on the issues involved, the energy and commerce committee is taking the lead on the legislative process that will be necessary to enact an effective and appropriate solution. chairman upton convened a hearing late last year and began

laying the groundwork for legislative action when this flawed rule was first proposed. i welcome his efforts to consider all possible options as his committee proceeds with its efforts. this attack by the federal government on religious freedom in our country >> the contraceptive issue was also the main topic of a press briefing held by senate republicans. senate minority leader mitch mcconnell kicked off this meeting.

>> it was kind of a slow day today. all of the news makers or someone else. down at the baseball park i heard. is that right? stadium?at the nat's we had a republican conference this morning to discuss essentially the jobs issue, our economy, and the way forward. our new conference chairman, john thune, conveyed that issue. i will call on him in a minute. we would like to address another issue that has risen in the context of obamacare. he has gotten the government involved in all aspects of our health care. he may have gotten us involved in other things as well. we have three senators with us who have been involved in developing a response to the

most recent discovery of yet another government interference with our lives in obamacare. we will do that shortly. with that, let me call on our conference chair, john thune. >> we had a good discussion this morning. the thing you are reminded of is we are an entrepreneur we have a lot of people with really good ideas about how to move our country forward. the one thing i think i would say and everybody agrees on is the president's policies have made our economy much worse. because his policies have made our economy worse, he is trying to distract and divide americans by and talking about divisions and those sorts of things to get groups of americans pitted against each other. we think there is a better way.

we ought not be talking about how to redistribute the pie, but how to make it bigger for all americans. how to expand our economy and create jobs. this morning was about coming together on those key agenda items and hopefully be able to work with the democrats on that, although it looks very much like they do not want to do a lot this year. i think the leader on their side would like to insulate his leaders on making it difficult vote in an election year. the path forward in terms of how we are going to deal with spending, debt, jobs, and the economy -- we are at a loss right now as to why the democrats are not going to produce a budget for the fourth year in a row. there are some things we can get done between now and the election. the american people expect us to act. we do not have a lot of time.

the issues we face are big and the consequences of inaction are great. my hope is we will see some willingness on their part to work with us to put policies in place that will make it less expensive and less difficult to create jobs for small businesses rather than making it more expensive and more difficult, which is what we have seen with the obama agenda. we have some folks who been on the lead on religious liberty. it is pretty clear we have, in this country, a heritage. the people who founded this country left other parts of the world because of the issue of religious persecution. that is the distinction about america. religious liberty is not something that is known in other parts of the world -- like the middle east. what we have seen from this administration is the trampling of the first amendment protection and a systematic dismantling of religious liberty

for people in this country. we believe that the president and, hopefully as a administration, will walk back from that. this is clearly an issue that has gotten the attention of not only the people who would subscribe to various religions -- catholics, protestants -- but those perhaps who are not that religious because they see this as an attempt to grow government and make it bigger, more expensive, and more interested. that is one of the very things we warned about when obamacare was passed in the first place. kelly ayotte. >> we have seen with the president of free health care bill as the or regulations are released by helping human services unprecedented -- if we put religious institutions and faith based organizations in a

position where they have to comply with government mandates that by -- that violate the principles of their faith, it is an affront to what we stand for as americans. also, this is not a women's rights issue. this is a religious liberty issue and it can apply to all faiths. i have for from my constituents who are deeply concerned about this. we need to respect the rights of conscience are all religions. when you look at what this administration has done, it has awakened a whole group of people who are deeply concerned about an unprecedented expansion of government into issues that we have always left in the quiet people's homes, churches, and faith based institutions. i will say this also. what the administration has done is really an -- is really unprecedented.

both parties have respected religious liberty. if you look at what was signed into law in 1993 -- the religious freedom restoration act -- what is in administration has done also violates not only the spirit of that law, but also the letter of that law, which was signed into law by a democratic president. again, i would say this is unprecedented. this is not a women's rights issue. this goes to the fundamental apart -- fundamentals of our constitution. i would call on the president to overturn this health and human services regulation, to stop infringing on religious freedom, and to change the direction on what we have seen as an unreceptive digits -- as an unprecedented expansion of obamacare. >> what we have is the administration trying to act

like they are backing away from this bad policy. jay carney saying we want to talk about this for a year. we have given them a year to think about it. that may be the most offensive part of this whole idea. you have to do things that are contrary to your faith principles. by the way, we are going to give you a year to figure out how to accommodate that change. it is offensive, it violates the first amendment of the constitution, it shows what happens when the government thinks they can not only defined health care, but deliver health care. it should not be allowed to stand. it is fundamentally a religious principle issue. the government is saying here is the specific kind of coverage you have to give your employees. this particular role is not even about health care. it is about the coverage you have to give your employees. there was recently a supreme

court case -- 9-0 -- on a hiring at religious and institutions. some say we give the church an exemption, which shows how little they understand the whole state based institutions of the country. the church pakistan will be on the building of the church. if it is a church-run school, a church-run university, a day care center, a jewish day care center or muslim community outreach effort -- all of those things are part of that faith based community. the supreme court just rolluled 9-0 that those institutions have specific protected hiring rights. they also have all kinds of other different, specific, and protected rights because of who they are in because of the constitution. you cannot pass laws and rules

that violate constitutional principles. that is what this would do. that is whether it is such an outrage. it is one of many instances that could occur if you begin to think the government can interfere in these areas. it is about religious liberty, not about a specific individual application of that liberty. it is about religious liberty. we want to look at the rights of conscience, which were mentioned at the constitutional convention itself as one of the reasons for the first amendment. i understand people's outrage and will join me in the congress and believed soon there will be a number of democrats telling the administration not to go down this foolish path. do not try to turn america into something it is not. do not think you can let the government control the faith views of the american people.

>> this that has nothing to do with it right versus left. this is straightforward. this is about the government of the united states telling a faith based organizations they have to pay for something they teach their members should not be doing. it is that simple. if the answer is yes, then this government can reach all other kinds of results. i think the vast majority of americans will tell you that the government of the united states should not go in and tell a church-based organization that they must pay for something that their faith teaches the members not to do. that is what this issue is about. that is why commentators on the left and right are saying this is wrong. people in the white house to adopt a comfortable with it. the solution is for the president to say maybe we went too far. we upper from a lot of people and we will reconsider this position. -- we have heard from a lot of

people and we will reconsider this position. this does not have to be one of the issues. all the president has to do is reconsider the decision ended knowledge that maybe they went too far. i hope that is what will happen. if it does not, i hope the senate and the house will act on it. the american people are asking us to predict that is an important issue. [speaking spanish]

[speaking spanish] >> [unintelligible] >> i guess what i am is suggesting -- what is an illustration is doing with regards to our economy, it is

pretty clear the growth and expansion we are seeing a in government is leading us to more of a welfare state. i think divisions like this park -- decisions like this move us towards secularization of our country. it seems to me they are suggesting this regard for the basics, core beliefs of the american people. these beliefs are not something people have fought for over the years. it is what brought us to this country in the first place. it ought to be the thing we -- we are concerned about every aspect of our constitution, but if we are not willing to protect our constitution and the reason people came to our country in the first place, i do not know what kind of country we are. this is an affront to the constitution in my view.

>> i want to give an example of something that happened earlier this year. the conference of catholic bishops previously held the grant. basically, the career employees at health and human services, they gave the conference of catholic bishops the highest ranking on addressing the issues. the administration went as far as changing the criteria of the grant to make sure that faith based organizations that got the highest ranking would not receive it. when i see something like that, i say to myself that is something that is troubling because objectively i would question it. that is another example of the administration of overreaching. >> [unintelligible]

>> if you listen to their compromise, they are going to talk to them in a year and figure out how they can comply to this world. go back and listen to exactly what they said yesterday. we will give them a year to see how they can comply with this role. it was not a discussion on how we can change the rule or walk away from this. the white house does not need to do this. whether it is catholic bishops not getting a grant or hospitals being told if you not provide all services, we do not reimburse you for any services -- this is systematically happening across the board. this is something that struck at the heart of these big institutions that provide lots of health care and lots of education. they are the ones driving this debate. not us. it was the catholic bishops that sent the letter to every parishioners, i think, in

america for the last two weeks. or the catholic chaplain of the office sent a letter that would initially not be read. this is a huge issue and if you listen to what they are saying, they are just try to take the subject and kicked it down the road for a year, which may be why they made it a year to start with. >> anything about the legislative response? you have introduced two different bills -- >> we are discussing the appropriate response. the story centers you heard from are involved in those discussions. we will let you know when we decide what approach we are going to take. >> [unintelligible] >> would you repeat that

question? >> [unintelligible] >> there are also other reports that he vetoed the bill. that is not what this is about. this is about religious liberty. you can try to turn it into all the political discussion you want. this is a first amendment american right. it has nothing to do with who said that where and who said that win. it is about this issue right now. the conscience protection lot that senator ayotte and senator rubio signed predicted the path

of the president would be on. this is something we have tried to talk about four weeks now. -- for weeks now. >> [unintelligible] >> we are obviously very concerned about the americans being held. i issued a statement yesterday with senator mccain and senator lieberman. right now the egyptian government needs to understand how serious we are about resolving this issue. we are in a position where they could be in jeopardy. they have an opportunity to correct this by obviously releasing the americans and resolving this with our country. we have a very important relationship with egypt and i want to see that relationship repaired, but it is up to them to act right now. >> thank you.

>> reporter's question white house spokesman jay carney at the daily news briefing. this is 15 minutes. >> on the contraception issue, speaker boehner is promising to repeal the rule through legislation. i am curious about your reaction to that. if that were to happen, will the president veto it? does he feel that strongly? >> there is a lot of speculation about the question. on this issue, from the very on this issue, from the very beginning we have said we would work with individuals who of concerns as we were to implement the law. on january 20, when this decision was announced, secretary sebelius said "we will continue to work with religious

bridge during this transition to discuss their concerns. the 28 states have similar contraceptive coverage -- contraception coverage requirements. some states do not even have the exemption with -- which this provision requires our churches and houses of worship. we want to work to implement this policy in a way that is sensitive to their concerns. let us be clear -- we are committed to ensuring that women have access to contraception without paying any extra cost, no matter where they work. >> while you are planning to work with the groups who have concerns, congress, at least the house, are planning to undo the role. >> right now we are focused on the implementation of this rule and doing what we said. on january 28 when secretary

sebelius announced it -- we will work with those concerned to see if there is a way to implement the policy to make sure women everywhere have the same level of health care coverage and the same access to preventive coverage, but to do it in a way that would allay some of these concerns that have been at express. as you know, the president has worked with churches and organizations that do a lot of good work. he is very sensitive to concerns like these and he wants to find a way to implement this important role because he is committed to making sure women have access to this coverage. he wants to find a way to implement it. it can allay some of the concerns that are expressed. that is why this transition period was announced at the same time the rule was announced.

>> is the white house hopeful of having some sort of solution in place? >> i do not want to predict a date by which this process might produce a result. i think it is best to let the process take place. there are ways. i think people in the broader community who have been looking at this issue have been talking about the fact that there are ways to approach this that would is implementedule so that women have access to these important health care services no matter where they work. i do not want to get into

whether this approach might work or that one, who might feel better about it if this solution were put forward -- we are not at that point in the process. >> negotiations same bog down on the payroll tax. i am curious what the white house -- are you confident it will get extended? is there a genuine and nervousness that this might expire? >> we continue to be confident that congress will pass the extension of the payroll tax cut for the rest of the calendar year. it is still inconceivable to us that congress would want to raise taxes on one of the 60 million -- 160 million americans

on march 1. americans need that extra money to pay bills, to make ends meet. there is an elephant -- element of deja vu to this process. i think it is clear what is needed to get done. it is clear from the economic reports we have had in the last several months that the economy is growing and producing jobs. we are moving in the right direction and congress should not muck that up. faults of the hill me to act without delay and without drum up to get this done. drama to get this done. but leaders on the hill feel extending the payroll tax cut is a good thing to do it. it is a good thing to do for

hard-working americans. democrats obviously agree. the president strongly agrees that we ought to get this done. we still have time to work on this and we hope congress focuses and gets the work done. let's mix it up. >> on contraception -- it is not just the speaker and mitch mcconnell, the candidates have seized on it, including mitt romney. they see an opportunity to not only drive a wedge in the work of some democrats. does the president feel he is vulnerable to that? >> the president is focused on putting in place the right policies for women across the country. he is focused on finding a balance sensitive to the

concerns expressed by some religious groups. the former governor of massachusetts is an odd messenger on this given that the services this rule would provide for women around the country are the same provided in massachusetts when he was governor. -- when he was governor, including contraception, including coverage with no co pay or deductible. the religious exemption for houses of worship and churches, but not to universities and hospitals. mitt romney is criticizing the president for pursuing a policy that is virtually identical to the one that was in place when

he was governor of massachusetts. >> had the president commented on rick santorum on the issue? [laughter] >> i do not think he is commented. >> the invention -- the evangelical report on catholics who were opposed to this -- i go to jail rather than violating what god commands us to do. he has a lot of twitter followers. are you worried that that will rally the republican base? >> we are not worried about republicans or democrats being a political component of this. we are concerned about making sure that women get access to these important services, that

women are treated equally around the country regardless of where they work, but we are very sensitive and understand the concerns that have been expressed. that is why as part of the original announcement of this, secretary sebelius put in a process for further discussions to be held that will address some of these concerns and maybe allay some of them. i cannot sort of itemized or give great detail on what those discussions will look like. the full implementation of this policy does not take place until august 2013. this conversation is only just under way, but it is important to note that the president takes those concerns seriously and is

committed to the policy. we will press forward with these discussions to see if there is a way to move forward in implementing the policy. i want to get out of the front row and then come back. you bet. mr. walton. >> what has been the president's reaction to this reaction about the conflict -- contraception issue? was he surprised at the reaction of both political and religious? >> as i have been saying, the president understands these concerns. that is why he agreed with the approach the secretary sebelius took that sought that appropriate balance, that made sure there was an exemption for churches and houses of worship,

on a lot -- itemized in some states of the country, and why he supported the part of this that required more discussion to be had as a way of implementing this for institutions and groups that have expressed concerns. i do not think -- i think he understands and understood from the beginning why this is a sensitive issue and it informs his decision in the way he has. >> is there any sense of how discussions will take place? is there any sense of who would talk to who i am trying to come up with some sort of a resolution? >> i do not have a lot of

individuals involved in those types of discussions. discussions involving health care policy would normally include folks who do health care policy in a variety of places in the administration. lookit the kind of conversations that will take place in terms of the policy -- looked at the kind of conversations that will take place in terms of the policy. >> there were reports yesterday that we -- that looking for a way to implement the policy was a way to compromise. tell me why that should be seen as an attempt to find a compromise? >> i want to be clear that the president is committed to implementing the policy that will ensure women across the country, no matter where they

work, will have access to the same health care coverage and the same preventive health care services, including contraception. it is also true and has been true since the day this was announced that we intend as an administration, as secretary sebelius said, to work with those who have concerns about this to see if there are ways to implement that policy. these are some of those concerns and both are true, but i wanted to be clear yesterday and i want to be clear today that the commitment to ensuring women have access to these important health care services remains very strong. >> it is not a compromise because you will not walk back on access without a co pay? >> right. >> there is also a difficulty within the pentagon. the army chief of chaplains

felt a letter from the archbishop may lead to disobedience. >> my understanding is the chaplains were absolutely free to express their opinions about this and did. i would refer you to the defense department, but i would certainly hope in reporting on this you note that the chaplains are free to express their opinions. >> can you confirm that the president's former chief of staff encouraged the president not to make this decision, but the president listened to his senior advisers? >> i will not get into internal deliberations and who is on which side of the discussions and debates internally. i will say, broadly speaking,

the reports that i am certain people were against this issue is an accurate both broadly and specifically. i will not engage in a guessing game about who thought which way on what. >> presidential candidate mitt romney responded to the contraception mandate when you talk to reporters in atlanta. this is 10 minutes. >> did he get your picture? good. very good. let's see -- it is good to be back in georgia. i had a great experience in nevada. the three last night, not as good. congratulations to rick santorum on a good night.

we are looking forward to the games ahead. we think we will pick up the delegates we need to get the nomination. we are feeling pretty good. >> [unintelligible] >> we expected a long process. you heard me say over some months now, senator mccain after winning florida, they went on to lose 17-18 contest after that but was able to put the delegates together. there are big states coming up with a lot of delegates. we will compete actively there. as you know, we did not devote a lot of money or time to the states yesterday. we were spending our time and money in florida and nevada. senator santorum took a different course. he left florida and nevada and went to the other states. he was able to reap the rewards

of that. >> [unintelligible] >> maybe we can meet senator santorum where we can see head- to-head. there will be places where he will win and places where i will win. there is no such thing as coordination of gellert -- president to politics. it is meant to be a long process. so far we are doing pretty well. >> do you agree or you have a

problem with conservatism? >> we have eight very strong conservative base in new hampshire, florida, and nevada. those are places i campaigned at. i believe getting more votes going back to the days of ronald reagan in nevada. people of different backgrounds come face, and strong conservatives have been supporting me. -- the for backgrounds -- different backgrounds with strong faith, and stong

conservatives have been supporting me. [no audio] >> there is an exemption under the competition for religious conscience and religious organizations. when i was governor, we had a piece of legislation for the morning after pill coverage. it was pretty modest. it affected catholic institution, catholic hospitals. i vetoed that. before i became governor, there was also a measure which required insurance policies in massachusetts to include contraceptives. after i became governor, we work on a health care plan. i worked to remove those mandated coverage is, such as

contraceptive coverage. i have steadfastly [unintelligible] i worked closely with the archdiocese in boston and met with carl o'malley. .- cardinal o'malley we did our best to [unintelligible] >> [unintelligible] >> as with south carolina, we took a lot of incoming in south carolina.

obviously senator santorum was able in minnesota. i was not there to respond. i will clearly make the differences between myself and my opponents is -- my opponents very clear. this is an interesting opportunity for the american people. some feel the republican party lost its way in the past. we spent too much, borrowed too much.airearmarked too cricks santorum and newt gingrich were a big part of that. under new gingrich, earmarks doubled. rick santorum continues to defend earmarks. \ devoted to raise the debt ceiling i believe five different

-- he voted to raise the debt ceiling, i believe, five different times. government spending increased by some 80%. republicans spent too much money, borrowed too much money. rick santorum and a new gingrich me to be held accountable. the people are unhappy. people spent their careers in washington, borrowing -- spent their careers in washington borrowing, spending, and earmarking. i am the only guy who is not spent time in washington. senator santorum and speaker gingrich are the very report -- very republicans who acted like democrats. when republicans and act like democrats, they lose. speaker gingrich had to resign. senator santorum lost by the biggest margin since 1980.

borrowing, spending, and earmarking is not a good combination if you are a republican. >> [unintelligible] >> mr. kearney needs to change his history. -- mr. carney need to change is history. that happened before i was governor. when i became governor, i worked to remove it from the health care plan. we removed all of the mandated coverage. quite clearly he needs to understand, that was a provision that got there before i did. thank you. >> senate democrats held this press briefing on capitol hill, outlining their position on the birth control coverage mandate.

we will hear from senator barbara boxer, frank lautenberg , and mr. bloom and fall. this is 25 minutes. >> ok. having had a laugh at my politically challenged self, i want to get to this very serious issue. we are here to stand up for the women of america who are guaranteed access to free, preventive care do to help insurance. we want to thank president obama for making that possible. because of the new health care law, insurance plans will provide breast cancer screenings, hiv screenings, cervical cancer screenings, and free contraception if the women want to avail themselves of all of these preventive services. if they do not want them, they do not have to have them.

if you want them, you will be able to have them free. the institute of medicine, which is not in politics, it is in health care, recommends access to free birth control among those prevention benefits. when a woman goes on birth control, she gets a great health benefits and her child is much more likely to get prenatal care. it leads to healthy families and healthy babies. now, the other thing -- i hope we repeat this over and over -- some women are prescribe birth control for non contraceptive

women, to stop their menstrual cycle, to stop endometriosis, to stop a variant says. some even need it for skin conditions. it is medicine. now, the republican leaders of congress at the highest levels want to take away their health care. contraception allows families to plan for their children. again -- healthier moms, healthier kids. here is a little known fact -- those employers who offer birth control save about 16% of their health care costs because access to birth control does prevent problems. you prevent disease.

let me conclude with this -- women in this country are tired of being treated by -- like a political football by republicans in congress who are continuing to try to take away their benefits, to take away their rights. now, they tried to stop health care reform. they said to women if you want to be treated equally when it comes to cost -- they tried to take away free breast cancer screenings. just last week we were all talking about that. now they are taking away and they want to take away -- we will not allow them -- their right to birth control. women deserve to be respected. they do not want a congressman or senator telling you what to

think and what to do. here is something else you need to know -- 335,000 churches are exempted from this requirement to offer free birth control. 335,000 employers. these are the churches. their religious freedom is being respected. we want to make sure that the religious freedom of all americans are protected. that means the women who work for institutions which serve the general public. 98% of american women have used contraception in their lifetime. this is the 21st century.

access to free birth control saves lives and saves money. i will say this -- republicans move to take this benefit away from american women and families, we will fight them. we will fight for the women and their families and their economic well-being and their good health. [cell phone rings] that is the concluding music. patty murray will speak next and she will elaborate. we have done it before, we would do it again. -- we will do it again. >> with the combined years of

experience of everyone up here with me, i can tell you we have seen a lot of politic -- political attacks on women's rights. as time goes on the other side attempt to exploit women's writes for their own political gain, we hear the same excuses. every time we hear it is not an attack on women's health care, it is all about something else. we are told attacks on abortion rights are not an infringement on a woman's right to choose. it is about states' rights. we are told that accessing emergency contraception is not about our ability to make our own family planning decision, it is really about protecting pharmacists and scientific processes. this last week we were told that abouts decision was not their opposition to planned parenthood, it was about some

congressional investigation. a earlier today, you had a republican senator make the claim that this debate "is not an issue about contraception." republicans went on to explain that it was about everything else. they said it was about their opposition to the health care bill, which will provide millions of underserved men and women with the health care they need. they said it was about the catholic church. the vast majority of catholics utilize contraceptive services. that was left out. they said this was about freedom, except, apparently, not the freedom to make your own health care choices. this is about contraception. if they take it is not, we want them to hear the women whose access to contraception is on the line with the battle they are taking on. tell it to the x-ray technician in california who works for catholic hospital.

she is no different than an x- ray technician at the hospital across town, but she is refused coverage because of who her employer is. tell it to michelle. she is a delivery nurse at the dominican hospital in santa cruz. she says it is something we have come to expect for ourselves and our family. tell it to everyone who is employed by schools and universities and institutions who want to make their own health care decisions. i am guessing of those who are making political hay out of this issue will not take them. they will continue to talk about everything but women's reproductive health. an attack on women's rights never comes without being disguised as something else. i tell you what -- all of us up here on this stage are not fooled. the american people should not be either. this is a fight to protect the

rights of millions of americans who do use contraceptives, who believe family planning is the right choice for them and they do not deserve to have an ideology prevent them from getting the coverage they deserve. we are here because we fought hard to make sure preventive health care services for women were a right for everyone in this country no matter who their employer was. we are going to work hard to make sure we preserve that. >> when you think about things, what an anomaly it is that one of the pleasures of being made on the republican presidential candidate side, they are going to take away the right of women to take care of their health.

imagine running for president saying you are going to take away women's rights to take care of their health. i am here -- i have five daughters and five granddaughters. i do not want anyone telling them what to do about their health. the latest attack is coming from, what i will call, and oligarchy, which is a word i used when there was another at work to take away women's rights of choice. now they are trying to take away affordable birth control, which is basic health care for women in our country. now mitt romney says if he is elected president, one of the

first things he will do is to overturn both obama administration policies that make birth control more affordable for women. that is what president mitt romney would do it for spain. take affordable birth control away from women in our country. make no mistake, contraception is an essential health care, not only for women, but for many. it is expensive. a third of all women who have that still have to pay for it. republican politicians need to stop meddling in the help of women in our country. it is time to tell those republicans mind your own business. ideology should never be used to block women from getting the care they need to lead healthier lives. "malegarchy" out

of office and tell women we will protect your right to have good health and to raise your family as you see fit. all of us are fighters, by the way. [laughter] >> i am very proud to stand here today with such champions for women's health care and women's rights. i am dumbfounded that in the year 2012 we still are fighting about birth control. our opponents will look for any excuse to impose their ideology on women's rights. it is sad we have to stand here yet again to fight back against another overreach and intrusion in women's lives. this is simply big government at its absolute worst. the power to decide whether or not to use contraception lies with a woman, not her boss.

what is more interested than trying to allow an employer to make medical decisions for someone who works for them? take a look at what is happening. republicans are trying to make it their decision on what the women in this country can do with their own bodies and help. they are showing a callous disregard and attempting to undermine the ability to make their own decisions. let's be clear -- this role respects the views of religious institutions, individual conscience, and freedom. a strong exemption allows churches and houses of worship to opt out of providing birth control. this is the law of the land in 28 states. this should not be an issue. women and families across the nation support common sense, affordable health care. they deserve that access to plan

a family on their own terms. to take health care into their own hands. this is not a decision that should be made by washington. if my republican colleagues want to take this issue head on, we stand here ready to oppose any attack launched against women's health. >> i am also proud to stand here with champions >> we should not have to be here. we should be talking about job creation and economic growth and not women's health. politics and politicians have no place in women's health care. our message back to whoever would suggest a restraint or a legislative move is it will be dead on arrival. it is a nonstarter.

weast and strongly with the president, and men and eight women who back them ought to simply take their hands off women's health care. there really is less new here than meets the eye. 28 states have comparable provisions. it has worked well there. the eeoc ruled in 2001 that birth control has to be afforded under these kind of health care plans. there is some mixed judicial ruling on it, but many employers now comply with that ruling. this kind of provision really affords individual women the choice, and that is the key here. $500 or even $600 per year is a lot of money for women to spend on women's health care, and

their health plan should cover it. any health plan that provides that kind of coverage will be acceptable. but employers cannot discriminate. that is the law. and so the kind of exemption that exist for churches, 335,000 of them, affords religious -- respects those convictions. we have a respectful balance here. no one is required to use birth control. no institution is required to dispense it, simply to cover it in their health care plan. that is why the message today is, hands of women's health care. we will fight anyone who interferes with it. >> we will be glad to take questions. [unintelligible] >> we are not going to go into

detail, but all would say it is our clear understanding from the administration that the president believes, as we do, that american women should have access to birth control gear >> and david axelrod had said yesterday that the administration might be willing to look for some sort of compromise. he indicated there might be some room for compromise, and one house is willing to talk to them again. would you support that effort? >> i spoke with david axelrod. the nikkei you what he told me, exactly what i just said, that the administration absolutely stands behind -- let me tell you what he told me. the administration stands behind the ability of american women to have access to this benefit. with the exception of the

335,000, he has given an added one-year grace period to religiously affiliated organizations to figure out exactly how they are going to do that, and that is what they will do. [unintelligible] >> i just wonder if you could dress -- if you could address -- the catholic church said they are were the first came out strongly against this and said these are affiliated institutions, they are extensions of the church. what do you say to them, and is there any ground for compromise here? >> first of all, there are 335,000 churches today who are exempt from this because they are churches. we are talking about schools, universities, hospitals that employed many, many women of all different kinds of faith. they have to rely on their

employer to decide whether or not their access to contraceptives, that is something we are saying cannot happen. as senator boxer just said, the president, in his policy that he put forward, gave those institutions the year to figure out how to do that, and that is what they are in the process of doing today. >> remember, this is not anything new. more than half of the population in this country already has these laws in their states. 28 states that covers more than half of the population. this is not anything new. the fact that the universities and these hospitals are working for the spirits are really, this bus is not about that. -- this fuss is not about that.

the questions are based on what you see the issues are. what patty murray stated so strongly is this is not about this exemption. it is about the fact that they don't want women to have access to birth control, and that is certainly true of the republicans who stood before you earlier today. >> i spoke with the l.a. catholic archdiocese. the way they have got around that requirement, what they tell me was the california law requires that insurance companies to provide contraceptives, etcetera, and it is not unlike the federal law, does not require the employer to cover it. so there are catholic institutions in california that are not paying for contraceptives. >> you mean catholic affiliated

institutions. it is a totally catholic institution and their mission is religion, -- many hospitals do this their own way. one way is they will contract with an outside entity to provide the particular benefits. there are many, many ways. the point is, there is nothing for people to be ringing the bells about. this is a compromise. this make sure that religious freedom of everyone is respected. that includes the women of this great nation. that is why president obama has struck that balance. that is why it is supported in the polls and that is why we will stand up against any move by our republican friends to try to take away a benefit that women have been granted. >> how concerned are you that if republicans and the nrc [unintelligible]

in states where voters tend to be more socially conservative. >> what i can tell you is that women in general largely support the ability for women to have access to contraceptives. and i don't think they are going to like having someone represent them that wants to take away that right. i am concerned that the republicans are using women's right to choose as ... murph on a wall to look at over here so the american public does not see that they are blocking us from passing legislation to put this economy back on track. >> [unintelligible] >> i have not heard what tim cain said, but i know that our candidates in other states and they know their own beliefs. i back all of them in doing that. what i am saying from where we are today, we believe strongly and will fight strongly to make sure that women in this country

have access to contraceptives. >> this is a benefit that has been granted to the women of this country. about half are women have come and we want women to have it, and the president does as well. any move to take that right away means that women are going to lose a financial benefit, $600 a year in their pocket. that is a lot to the working poor and middle-class. that is a lot to everybody. they will be taking that right away, costing women money they were not going to have to spend, and women's health will suffer. you heard of these cases, women unable to afford contraception having to lose their ovaries. this is a fact. this is a health benefit. everyone has their right to their view on it, but at the end of the day, we are here to say we support the right of women in this country to have access to

birth control through their insurance policy. anybody that stands in the way will have to deal with us and our friends, and we thank you very much for coming out today. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> coming up next, a house hearing on defending the private computer networks from cyber security threats. and the defense department briefs reporters on the war in afghanistan. then republicans called mandate on birth control covered -- birth control coverage in health care plans. committee members will debate

the bill and possible amendments in a meeting that begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. you can watch live coverage on c-span3 and c-span.org. >> when i first started the book, i also thought, this must be an american story. this is about a country that worships the religion of self- reliance and individualism. it turns out we are laggards when it comes to living alone. it is more common in european nations, especially scandinavia. it is even more common in japan. >> in "going solo," a look at living alone. on sunday at 3:00, the second cousin of condoleezza rice on her work to reduce gang violence in los angeles, and starting a dialogue between it gang leaders and police. at 8:15, bonnie morris on her

book and play of the same name. book tv, every weekend on c- span2. >> internet security experts testified this help hearing about the private sector's role in defending against computer security threats. congressman greg walden chairs this committee on communications and technology. it is 2 hours 15 minutes. >> i called to order the subcommittee on communications and technology. i want to welcome our members and witnesses. that in october, the house republican cybersecurity task force recommended the committees

of restriction review cybersecurity issues. this hearing continues our committee's review of cyber security issues with an examination of threats to communications networks and the responses of the private sector. threats to communications networks have come a long way in a very short time, and they are very, very real and serious. before coming to congress, i spent about 22 years as a radio broadcaster, and as a small businessman, had to worry about security in our communications network 20 years ago, it was relatively straightforward. you had to have a fence around the tower and you could not let people get near the transmitter.

while physical security remains important, cybersecurity has become a pressing concern. now small-business confronts a dizzying array of threats on line. these threats are serious, and a lessor of cyber dispenses -- it can crash a website or launch a garage of attacks on the network. those are serious consequences for the small businesses that are the heart of creating jobs in this economy. and our small business, 10 years ago or so when we did create a computer network and put everything up on digital audio, our main server was attacked and taken over and it suddenly started running slower and slower. eventually we determined it had been overtaken. every month we learn more about the cyber threats. what we have learned thus far is of great concern. i am concerned that our

communications networks are under siege. i am worried that the devices consumer issues are vulnerable and i am concerned there process for looking at communications supply chain issues lacks coordination. i am also concerned that our cyber defenses are not keeping pace with our cyber threats. in this hearing, we are lucky to have the voices of by private sector witnesses to guide us through the complex issues of cyber security. i am hoping you will tell me that cyberspace is secure and we can all rest easy at night. unfortunately, i have read your testimony and it is not so. american businesses are losing dollars, jobs, intellectual property, and much, much more because of cyber crime and cyber asked in a lush, and our national security is potentially a risk. -- private-sector owns most of

the critical infrastructure, the wires, servers, the towers that make up our communications networks. they are on the front lines of cyber security. i want to know what cyber security services are being offered to consumers, what protections are being deployed in our communications networks, what affirmative steps are being taken to combat cyber crime. i expect to hear what you think the appropriate federal role is. our federal laws and regulations -- are they helping or interfering with information sharing? our federal regulations appropriate, and if so, how? should the federal government be providing incentives for internet service providers and other members of the private sector to invest and innovate in the cybersecurity arena? how should our country's fiscal state shape our discussion of the federal role? these questions and others will form the basis for deciding what

cybersecurity legislation, if any, is needed in the near term, and how we can best secure cyberspace in the long run. i want to thank our panelists for being here today to help inform this important subcommittee on what we should do and how we can be better informed in doing our job. with that i would recognize the gentle lady from california, the ranking commander -- and ranking member of the citsubcommittee. >> thank you for convening this important hearing, and i want to welcome the witnesses. i am pleased that juniper networks and mcafee are here to talk to us about tackling the challenges of cybersecurity this morning. we all recognize the serious

threat to our nation's communications networks. since 2006, the number of federal cybersecurity incidents reported to the department of homeland security has increased by 659%. that is a whopping number. the economic impact of these incidences is equally significant. a recent study estimated that the median annualized cost of cyber crime to a victim organization is $5.90 million per year, an increase of 56% from 2010. the more we rely on the internet to conduct our business, the moral vulnerabilities we create for hackers to exploit. having served as a member of the house intelligence committee for eight years, i am very well aware of the threat, not just from criminal hackers but also, obviously, from other countries. talking about the problem is not enough.

we need to act, and that requires the help of both the private sector and federal government. the private sector represents 95% of this, the federal government the other 5%. when the first steps to tackling is growing threat is education and training, whether at home or in the workplace. every american should understand what they can do to protect themselves against a cyber attack. route information sharing is also a key aspect of our nation's response to cybersecurity. if we are going to ask industries to report cybersecurity incidents to the government, then we need to establish a clear process to do so. i am pleased to support our colleagues aphorists -- efforts. it is one of three or four bills in the house and three or four in the senate as well. it is important to recognize

that timely alerts to consumers and businesses can be the difference between an isolated cybersecurity incident and one that impact millions of users. of voluntary isp code of conduct currently being developed by the sec is one of the proposed ways to alert consumers when amal where infection is discovered. today's hearing is an important opportunity for us to better understand our rule in cybersecurity including what role should be played in protecting our nation's communication networks, and how the private sector and other federal agencies should interact with them. so thank you to all of the witnesses, those that come from silicon valley to instruct us, and what remaining time i have, i would like to yield to mr. markey. >> last week robert moore

testified that cyber threats will soon surpass terrorism as the number-one threat facing the united states. we know from the department of homeland security that there have already been threats to the utility sector. we know that russia and china have rolled over electricity grid to find vulnerabilities. our economy hinges on of our reliable flow of power with losses that going to the billions of dollars with every major blackout. our national security also depends on it. 99% of electricity used to power are in military comes from the .ommercially operated regrid last september i ask the federal regulatory commission to name the number one threat to electricity reliability. all five commissioners agreed cyber threats or the number one threat to the grid. 2009, the full committee passed the grid act.

it gave the authority to quickly issue grid security if threats have not been adequately addressed by the industry. it was killed in the senate. all five commissioners also agreed that given this authority would increase america's ability to secure our electric grid. with cyber threat growing by the day, threatening our security and our economy, it is compare to that this committee passed the grant act so we can move it forward could dig past the grid act. we should listen to the fbi director and to the warnings coming from russia and china and pass the grid act soon. i yield back. >> we are now going to recognize mr. barton. before i do that, i just want to say how important it is to have

these members on this. all of that is most helpful as we tackle both of these issues. i now recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. barton. >> i thought mr. market was going to say the experts said the biggest threat was the epa, but he went a different way with that. back in 2006, subcommittee chairman upton held a hearing on this very same issue, and as full committee chairman, he and i sent a letter to the gao asking them to take a look at this issue. the response we received then is the response we are receiving today upheld, that it is quite

possible we could have a major attack, attack in this country that would dramatically affect our country. according to the norton cyber crime report this last year, cyber crime is a $388 billion industry with 431 million adults experiencing at least one cyber crime in the last year. in another study, research shows that the median annualized cost of cyber crime for companies is over $6 million a year. these are real numbers, real statistics for the year 2011. as we've used the internet more and more everyday, it is absolutely imperative that we

really take this seriously. as you pointed out, it is good to have the chairman of the select committee on intelligence on this subcommittee, because he has access to information that could be useful if and when we decide to legislate. so thank you, mr. chairman, for holding the hearing. as you know, there is an epa hearing downtown in the energy subcommittee, so i will be shuttling back and forth. >> if you don't mind yielding to mr. terry, and ms. blackburn will comment. >> this is an extremely important hearing and if we have to elevate the level of discussion and potential solutions. there is only one silver bullet that exists to prevent cyber crime. that is to complete disconnect your computer from any network. use it as a paperweight, maybe

just play solitaire. that is it. if you are going to engage in any level of commerce using the internet, you are at risk. the only thing we can do is try to minimize it. there is no silver bullet. why these folks are here today is for us to understand what tools may be available. in a somber task force, one of the things we concluded is that the vast majority -- in the cyber task force. the vast majority of everyday hackings can maybe not be prevented, but just go along with basic security features offered by private sector today or the networks. but we have to have people to those or usechase the lo those tools. there was one instance in omaha with the entity that controls

our facility that never thought it was important to have that kind of security. they were hacked, and all the information was stolen. the next level is where it gets dicey. how do you protect people? how do they protect their data? we cannot engage in setting the standards because, frankly, we set the standards and before the ink is dry on the bill, the standards have changed. so you are here to help us understand what solutions may be available to minimize and help secure our infrastructure. i want to thank you all for being here today. >> thank you very much, and in the short time we have, i cannot tell you more important issue. a lot of things can keep you up, and this is one of the main ones. 8% of the attacks that happen every day can be prevented by the operator.

it is those other 20% that are the devil in the details. between criminal attacks, economic espionage, disruption, or hacking, as we would call it, we have a very real and present danger when it comes to cyber threats to our network. nobody is more integrated than the united states, and therefore we are more at risk than other countries. i do believe it is unprecedented in history that such a massive and sustained intelligence ever by a government to blatantly still commercial data and intellectual property be used against the united states is well underway. we don't talk about it a lot, because companies are reluctant to talk about it. the real number we think is somewhere between 300,000,000,001 trillion dollars in lost intellectual property -- between $300,000,000,000.10

trillion dollars in lost intellectual property. the most concern or non nation states that are developing cyber capability that can threaten the united states. we did a seminar at stanford university on this very issue. i think it was well received. i look forward to hearing from the witnesses and i appreciate you being here so we can get to that next step and actually do something that helps us have a fighting chance against these cyber threats. >> thank you for holding today's hearing. i would also like to welcome our witnesses here today and i look forward to your testimony. there is no doubt that cyber attacks are real and continue to pose significant threats to several aspects of our economy.

communications networks for one of many areas that our nation must protect and ensure safety and soundness, particularly as we consider deploying an advanced nationwide broadband network for public safety. this new network will share many of the same cyber concerns as any other network. this is something we have to take seriously and must protect. moreover, our economy continues to experience ever evolving ingenuity and innovation in the american technology industry. one of those technologies that will continue to play a prominent role in the economy, both in the public and private sectors, is cloud computing. we also see consumer cloud applications like the icloud. one of those key issues is the challenge of cybersecurity relating to the cloud. the challenge is to find a critical balance between

american innovation and growth call combating cyber attacks. for the most part, the private sector will need to be up to the challenge in managing itself and that the networks from potential cyber attacks. that said, i do believe that some balance may be appropriate where the government must work together in partnership with the private sector on enhancing our nation's cybersecurity preparedness. simply put, one cannot do it without the other. small businesses, many of whom rely on the broadband economy, are also very susceptible to cyber attacks. in many instances, small businesses cannot fend off such attacks because they do not have a plan, or lack the resources. such an attack would be very costly to their businesses. during this economic recovery, the last thing small business owners in my district and across the country need to worry about is a cyber attack that would

hinder their business. i am pleased that the fcc recently launched a public- private partnership which is an online tool that will allow small businesses to create customized cybersecurity plans. it is important that we continue to educate small businesses and the public in general about risks that cybersecurity poses to small businesses, the government, and to our economy as a whole. i also believe a strong private- public partnership is critical to protecting against cyber attacks. it is my hope that that partnership continues to foster care moving forward. i look forward to give in -- i look forward to hearing from the witnesses today and hope they will have future hearings in the subcommittee so we can also hear more about the government of the effort to combat cyber attacks.

again i think the chairman for holding today's hearings and i am happy to yield to anyone on our side. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you for your testimony. we will now proceed to the witnesses. we have a very distinguished panel and we thank you again for being here today to share the informational having your testimony. we are going to start with mr. bill connor, the president and chief executive officer of entrust. thank you free testimony, and we look forward to your comments. >> midmorning. tagore privilege and honor to spend a morning here with you out of the cyber warfare game -- good morning. it is a pleasure and honor to spend a morning here with you. i would like to focus my early comments on the arms race, on one particular sector of

security. it is cult manning the browser. that vector of security is probably -- it is call a man in the browser. it has been around for awhile m --anning the browser. both for the country state and in organized crime stake. specifically, it is known as zeus. it is commonly now combined with -- zeus was the original man in the browser software. it started out in russia and ukraine. it went under its own merger and acquisition by its lead competitor in the underground world. their tools and technology were next generation. they merged in the fall of 2010 behind-the-scenes, as law enforcement started to attack its.

in february of last year, that new code is out on the market. you can bite with 24/7 support. no longer do you have to be intelligent to write the support. you buy it, pay for the support, and that will help you design your attack back on which banks, what you want to do. it is very complicated. you cannot find it with the traditional software that you have on your desktop, whether it is and anti-virus or the operating system is looking for it. it is "software that is targeted at small and medium business because it is targeted for money." what it basically does is target small and medium business that probably does not have the technology or banking understanding with its supplier to understand how to deal with it. how does it work?

i am a treasurer at a small business. i go when online to my financial institution. i say i want to move, say, $10,000 to a supplier. i have an agreement with my local bank to have online bill pay. i type that in, the bank sees that, but before the bank sees it, the software wakes up in the browser and changes the payee's from one supplier to maybe six mules. it changes the dollar amount from $10,000 to $100,000. what the bank sees is $10,000 going to six people. it is on your ip address and your network and your location. i am going to send it back because i want a one time pass code. it sends it back to the comptroller of your business and

says please confirm by putting your pass code in that is going to expire in 30 seconds that you authorize this transaction. that software wakes back up, converts that $100,000 back to $10,000, six players back to one. you type in your pass code, hit enter to send it back, and guess what? that $100,000 is now gone from the bank. you lose it, the bank loses it, and it is fed back into organized crime are around the world. unlike the personal side where i am protected by fdic, as a small or medium business, you are protected by nothing. if you look around this wonderful country of ours, there is no clear case law. the bank said i did nothing. we have had cases overturned that even though a business had only done it for transactions in the last year, and 20

transactions happen in six hours, totaling $2 million, when there line was only 500,000, that is what has happened. the good thing is the technology exists to deal with that today. the banks are not doing it and small businesses do not know what to do. our belief is very straightforward. much like quality, we need a lexicon. we need to do it over time. that is why education is critical. the second thing you must do is have public-private partnership. i can tell you the legislative walls around this do not work for anybody. i think you have to break public-private at different levels, from intelligence to the people like me that try to secure the u.s. government and others, to energy grids where

the department of energy works with those types of organizations. finally, we must take a unified effort in public and private to defend this, because it is and arms race. >> thank you for your excellent testimony. i think we have to recess so we can go do with our own accounts and we will be back in about an hour. we look forward to getting into questions with you and exploring it further. we are now going to mr. robert dix of the juniper networks. we are delighted to have you here. thank you for coming this distance to share your wisdom with us. please proceed. >> good morning. thank you very much for inviting me to testify about cyber security. juniper networks is a publicly held, a private corporation

headquartered in california with offices and operations around the world. information technology and communications networks or embedded in all manner of the nation's infrastructure including power plants, water filtration systems, financial and transportation networks, just to name a few. while risk assessments are being conducted, it delegates that networks are resilience. it is important to acknowledge that the risk continues to grow and change our efforts must be sustained and agile. in recognition of this reality, the private sector is working every day to protect against cyber threats. let me share a few examples. in 2007, a group of private companies can together to address the issue of software assurance a improving the integrity of software and hardware products.

one group has a series of written deliverables available to the industry at large. in 2008, a group of private sector companies came together to address the need for global, instant response by forming the internet consortium for the advancement of security on the internet. participating companies routinely share information in an effort to mitigate abnormal network that -- network activity globally because the cost is greater than any one company. across the 18 sectors, we have organizations working on the operational issues. we have sector coordinating council's that were derived as a result of the national infrastructure protection plan in 2006.

one council represents all 18 critical infrastructure sectors and working under a framework to advance critical infrastructure protection and cyber security. we are working with the administration on the implementation of national preparedness regarding an all hazards approach to critical infrastructure protection and cybersecurity. a number of users connecting to the -- the number connecting to the internet will continue to grow. traffic is expected to grow to four billion users in 2013. the explosion in the use of smart phones and tablets and the growth of social media is rapidly changing the workplace and how we communicate. an average of 10,000 tweets in the last few minutes of the super bowl on sunday.

this is the essence of technology. it enables us to do what we never could have imagined. that includes those with nefarious motives. the convenience of technology has changed the sharing of personal financial information. it is only reasonable to expect that the conversation must included discussion about economics. there are two sides of this going. if we focus only on technology development, we could miss the opportunity to examine the challenges and solutions. the market is developing an innovation and an unprecedented pace in history. the evidence would suggest that the adoption of available solutions has not kept pace. many low-cost and low-cost solutions are available to improve any users protection profile. there are many things we can do together. it is reported by reliable sources that a% of the vulnerabilities are the result

poor or no cyber hygiene. we can raise the bar of protection, it makes it more difficult and costly for the bad guys to do harm. when our nation was confronted a couple of years ago with the threat of the h1n1 virus, we mobilized as a nation to warn and buys:how to prevent themselves from the risk of infection. we have the opportunity to use that st. -- that same model to educate citizens, small business, students, nonprofits, and other stakeholders on how to prevent themselves from infection in cyberspace. we must move beyond just thinking about the challenges of today to thinking about the risk profile of tomorrow. today's cyber attacks are more complex and difficult to convert -- to detect and can target classes and even specific

users, gaining access to bible data and causing significant harm. working together, the united states will lead the effort protection of critical infrastructure. on behalf of my colleagues and employees of juniper networks, i thank you for the opportunity to testify before you this morning. the threat is real and the time for action is now. the american people are counting on us to get this right. we will continue exploring in the collaborative relationship on this important issue. >> thank you very much for sharing of commons with us. we now go to dr. james a. lewis from the center for strategic and international studies. thank you for being with us. we look forward to your testimony as well. >> i would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to testify. one thing that military and

intelligence experts would agree on is the cybersecurity problem is getting worse, not better. there is straight forward evidence that what we are doing now is not working. most experts believe we will not change your laws and policies until there is a crisis. i hope they are wrong. we all recognize the growing dependence of our economy on cyberspace and the risk this creates. there was testimony about how iran is losing its reluctance to attack the american homeland. the fbi director testified that the threat we face now come from terrorism and the beer is the bigger threat will come from cyber attacks. the ability to launch damaging attacks is spreading from a few advanced nations to many countries and many hostile groups. there is disagreement among when hackers will disrupt critical services in the united states, but most estimates put it at

some time in the next couple of years. cyber crime an espionage are rampant now, costing american jobs and damaging american economic competitiveness and national security. this morning i was trying to think what i could say that would be a little different, and i remember that i attended some of the first meetings in the clinton administration on commercializing the internet. back then, we thought it would be used for e-commerce like ebay and amazon. we did not expect a global network that would become the prerecord -- the premier vehicle for espionage and the primary vehicle for attack. we thought if we freed up encryption, companies and people would voluntarily secure the networks. i was wrong. we made the same mistakes in our approach to critical

infrastructure protection. there are three big errors. the incentives for cybersecurity vary from company to company and sector to sector and usually they are inefficient. there are legal obstacles that limit the ability of governments and companies to cooperate and share information. we need a coordinated defense, not a grab bag of individual actions. finally, we did not expect to face world-class opponents, as you heard from some of the earlier testimony. even midrange opponents with access to world class tools. we over estimated incentives and underestimated threats and legal obstacles. i would like to point out that congressman rogers bill would be useful if we could get it passed in removing some of the legal obstacles that hamper our ability to provide an adequate cyber offense. syria's defense requires coordination in mandatory action. the big telecom companies are

good at securing themselves and don't need more regulation, but the other sectors are in bad shape. some say regulation is burdensome, but if we do not hold infrastructure could mandatory standards, we guarantee a successful attack. nor does regulation damage innovation. and nonregulated internet is not a substitute for business friendly environment that innovation really needs. partnership and cooperation must become more than an exchange of slogans. austria has a good model for the government encouraged internet security -- internet service providers to develop a code of conduct to deal with boulware that appears to be working. we are considering similar options. there is a fundamental will set addressing the framework of the internet. we identify problems with it 20 years ago. we identified fix is for 12

years ago. we have not implemented these fixes. the investor would be really crucial. there are many opportunities to improve cybersecurity, but taking advantage of them will require a new approach. everyone wants to make things better. we all realize the scope of the problem. hearings like this provide an opportunity to find that new approach that will truly serve national security. i thank the committee for the opportunity and look forward to your questions. >> we appreciate your testimony and will have a few questions on the australian model. we will go now to mr. larry clinton, ceo of internet security alliance. thank you for being here today. we look forward to your comments. >> good morning.

there has been dramatic change in that of cyber threat picture in the last 18-24 months. the main concern is not hackers or kids in basements. cyber attacks have grown increasingly sophisticated, using what is known as the advanced persistent threat. these hackers are pro. they are expert at factors -- expert attackers. they target a system and almost invariably compromise or breach it. unfortunately, conventional information security defenses don't work against them. they are successfully evading best practices. it does not mean we have no defense. it means we need to modernize our notion of what constitutes

cyber threats. traditional approaches will not solve the problem because they will be largely reactive and not stay ahead of the changing threat nature. bad regulation could be counterproductive, leading companies to expand their limited resources. fundamental to stopping the advanced threat is to understand that our biggest problems are not technological, they are economic. independent research has shown the biggest barrier to combating the cyber threat is cost. president obama's cyberspace review said that many solutions that would enhance our security already exist in the marketplace but are not being used because of cost and complexity. last week, bloomberg released a study that found that to returning saw -- acceptable level of security would require a 91% increase in spending. the private sector has been extremely responsive to

combatant cyber threat. average spending in the telecommunications industry is $67 million a year. despite the fact that our current infrastructure is under constant attack, we have never had an instance of serious breakdown similar to what we have seen in the environmental arena. this success is due in part to the flexibility generated by the current system that relies on voluntary partnerships where the industry can manage the systems best and use their intimate knowledge to respond to emerging threats in a way that protect the system, rather than being driven by a preset government directive. there is still a great deal that congress can do to improve cybersecurity right now. first of all, we need to get the government of the house in order.

systemic threat sneeze to be addressed immediately. we need to provide the right mix of incentives and regulation. for industries where the the -- economics of the industry are tied to regulatory format, the current regulatory structure can be used to motivate needed cyber advancement. for industries where the economics are not inherent to regulatory structure, it will impede innovation, making us less secure. we need to motivate by providing appropriate incentives to spur investment. one example is the bill that passed the intelligence committee couple of weeks ago that uses liability reforms to stimulate additional information sharing. liability reform is only one of many reforms that need to be unleashed. others include better use of government procurement, a rare

use of private insurance, streamlined permitting, and others. this was spelled out in the cybersecurity contract in 2008 and endorsed by president obama in 2009 by the multi trade association and civil liberties coalition white paper on cyber security and 2010. a great deal of work needs to be done to fill out how these incentive models can be used in the various sectors. in the meantime, congress ought to enact reform and should do a good deal to better coordinate amongst themselves. passing that package would be a historic and politically achievable goal. ladies and gentlemen, you are dealing with the invention of gunpowder. mandating a thicker armor is not going to work anymore than

building it deeper moats would stop the invaders who have catapults. we needed their approach, a contemporary and creative approach that engages the private sector with government, not having the government control what the private sector does. we look forward to continuing to work with you. >> thank you for your testimony. our final witness is phyllis schneck. thank you for being here today. we look forward to your comments. >> good morning members of the subcommittee. thank you very much for the opportunity to be here and thank you for your interest in cybersecurity. i testimony will focus on four areas of the threat landscape.

first a bit of background. my background, i was raised in this back in the days of the radio tower. my father taught me to write code. i was taught the responsibility of that and the responsibility of the computing power we have. i wrote grant the private sector side of the fbi program for eight years. i chair the national board of directors that brings together the top analysts from the banking, telecom, pharmaceutical sectors and other organizations and have helped arrest four hundred cyber criminals worldwide in the past

two years. mcafee is based in santa clara. we protect business, government, and consumers all over the the world from an full spectrum of cybersecurity attacks. we enjoy driving the innovation that goes directly into hardware. the adversaries can get in in several different ways, but when a hardware knows not to execute and in -- an invasion. there are two kinds of companies and agencies across the world, public sector and private. we are looking at the mass movement of money markets and jobs between countries and companies and looking at the threat of destruction. the enemy is faster and smarter than we are at times. they are certainly faster. they have no legal, no intellectual property, and a

policy boundaries. in many cases they have plenty of money. it leads us to the role of the internet service provider. of we haven't announced that routes, but we have an ability and a great infrastructure run by the isp that delivers traffic reliably. the enemy has used our great infrastructure that we built as the good guys of the world as a master executive transport system for boulware --malware. can play a better role in cybersecurity. one thing they can do is help detect this traffic in the network fabric. i will explain that in just a moment. imagine if the network fabric

was smart enough not to route and the traffic of an adversary. the man more secure technologies from the market's -- demand more secure technologies from the market's. they cannot carry the burden alone. it is up to every system, every country -- company and user to harden their enterprise. what are the challenges we face today? we have the act of 1986 that prevents sharing information outside the telecoms. legally, we cannot combine our information together. secondly, it costs a lot of money and users are not willing to pay the difference. we need some help leading to some policy recommendations and proactive actions. at mcafee, it costs 160 million

and points. other companies do this, telecoms, and we can share that information. keep the enemy out. we are working to enable the government to put that information together to not only provide liability protections for privacy and civil liberties, but to balance out what we have had up to now. we can feed it and have a growing and breathing to have it served us in return. they can help us. the we can help them. we have to work on this legal

and policy network for global information sharing. i look forward to answering any questions. >> very impressive testimony. thanks for all of the work you do to try to keep us secure. we will now go into our question faiz. mr. clinton, you talk about incentives, and you were fairly specific. can you dive down a little deeper in terms of what that means in terms of more specifics on the incentives that would make a difference here. >> we are supportive of the approach that was articulated in the house report, which suggests a menu of incentives need to be developed because different industries are responsive to different things. the banking industry may respond to insurance incentives.

you need to have a set of incentives. on the other hand, you need to have some agreement as to what needs to be incentivized. for that, what we have suggested it in the multi-trade association paper that i spoke of before, we need to have some entity that does not create the standards or practices, but simply evaluate them. and underwriters lab for cyber security, if you will. and organizers would choose to elect a higher or lower level of adoption based on their business plan, and their business plan would be improved because they would have access to lower liability costs, lower insurance, a better chance to get a federal contractor, etc. we are saying we need a new science -- a new system, not a

government mandated system, but a new system where there are government roles and independent roles, such as this underwriter's laboratory, and then responsibility for the owners and operators. in those sectors of the economy where the economics is already built into a regulatory model, then you can use that to regulatory model. for example, if you are dealing with utilities. they have generally fairly detailed regulatory structure. the problem they're having is that they get mandates at one level and the funding at another. there will have to be a correlation done on the government side. basically, we think you need an independent set of entities indicating what needs to be incentivized. it can be done on a continuing basis and the industry needs to implement them.

>> when you and your sister were trading packets when you should have been sleeping, obviously, -- >> and doing their homework. >> yes, doing your homework and then turn out the lights. that was the threat to this computer. now we understand it to be broader than the networks that can be taken down. can you describe what those threats like and what should happen there? >> absolutely. we did that over a 1200 baud modem over a phone line. >> i remember a 300 baud modem or you put the phone into a coupler. >> the threat looks at an instruction that execute off the side of memory, not the piece that holds the word-processing program, but where your computer grabs the next instruction -- what do i do next. i am controlling my world on your machine, whether i am telling it to send out a lot of traffic or i just something that

might change the second -- the settings on circuit relays. my world is being executed on your machine. you can buy these exploits on the net. you can even use botnet that looked together like quicken. you are relying on someone else's piece of code. we see 66,000 pieces of code everyday called mauer ware. -- malware. it is to catch the pieces that are spreading across the internet. i cannot forecast the weather without the weather from all the different states and countries. that comes from the neighboring information sharing. but also, to detect instruction that is doing something is true not do. that means i can run even if the enemy get in. -- is doing something that it should not do. that means i can run even if the

enemy gets in. we need to simply be resilient to that. and that is the ability to operate -- to work at the operating system level. know what is good and do not let anything else run. that application why this thing in the community. and then understanding at the heart drug leval what should be accessing and what should not and then just block it. >> -- at the hardware level what should be accessing and ouattara not be, and then just block it. >> i'm glad you are on our side. [laughter] maybe that should have gone through an fcc approval process for a merger. it would never have happened. [laughter] all right, now we get serious. i will turn to my friend and colleague from california who brings so much to this debate and this issue for five minutes of questions. >> i want to thank each one of

you for your outstanding testimony. i think this is one of the best panels that has been assembled on a given subject matter. it is highly instructive. i cannot help but feel that this is like trying to get stocks onto an octopus, though. -- socks on to an octopus, though. it is massive. i think we have a pretty good idea of what the threat is. i do not think we have a clear picture of what to do with it. there are still many agencies. there was a mention of a 1986 log that i want to hear more about. we have talked about private- public partnerships. we know 95% is in the private sector and 5% in the government.

where do we begin with this? what are the legal roadblocks as any of you see them right now that are holding us back to do what my next question would be -- what is the new paradigm? and if we have very good pieces in place right now, what do we keep and what should we get rid of? to dr. schneck, do you agree with this notion of mr. clinton 's of an underwriter's loud? that sounds very interesting to me. i do not know where -- who wants to begin with what. roadblocks thatl brought -- you mentioned. are you familiar with 1986? i am not, and what is blocking. >> i am not a lawyer. >> neither am i.. >> the overall reason i mentioned that is that the

adversary has at the ability to act on this very quickly because they have no roadblocks. we have the ultimate weapon, and that is, the infrastructure that works at the speed of light. if we can put the instructions together and the intelligence together to work together to detect the virus and it knows that it does not belong there, that it can work to do so. we need the internet to do the same thing. the robbers that route our traffic, we need them to -- the routers that route our traffic, we need them to do the same thing. we have to combine the information in the private sector with the information and data in the government sector. some of those logs actually prevent the isp from combining that data. i do not have the answer for legally making network. but we have to find a way to put together at the indicator level this address, this location

could hurt you, and make that acceptable to a router at several hundred gigabyte. >> what you just described, would that fit in with mr. clinton oppose the idea of an underwriters lab? or not? >> i think it is different. >> did anyone ever tell you that you look like david gergen? >> i am pretty flattered. i hear david is upset. [laughter] we hear about different things, first of all, with respect to the legal issues. after he got elected, president obama appointed us to do a 60- day review of its cyber security with the song -- with the council staff. the largest document in that is appendix "a" going through all of the legal barriers. that is a place to start print essentially, we have a bunch of

laws that are written for an analog world, and we are now in a digital world. we still have laws on the books about how to manage your videotapes. i have not had a videotape in quite awhile. there's a lot that can be worked out to modernize things. we have suggested that some of those things are regulatory and could be offered as incentives. you know, to get away from some of these burdens. some of them are duplicative auditing requirements. we are all for auditing, but it should be a cyber security audit. you passed that audit and you do not have to do the rest. there are multiple state, local, federal, different agencies involved many organizations are spending their time and money doing redundant things. the last thing on where you start, i would strongly suggest that congress start by cleaning up the federal government's role and responsibilities. that is a much more limited

system. you can make a lot of progress really quickly while we are continuing to work with the private-public partnership model that we have. >> thank you. i am out of time. >> i will yield to the gentleman from nebraska. it strikes me we ought to get this appendix "a" and maybe have a task force of this subcommittee that gets into that more deeply. we have people with great experience here. where do we start, mr. clinton? >> i would start, first of all, at the federal level. we need to straighten out roles and responsibilities with the federal government and between government at the federal and local and state level. for example, i mentioned the problem we have in the utility sector where we have mandates that exist at one level and the funding comes at another level. what we have to do is realize that solving some of the cyber

security problem is going to cost us some money. unfortunately, when you have a state public utility commissioners, they are resistant to increasing the rate base. this is understandable, but we have to find some way to get a pass-through on some things. a good review on scrubbing the governmental issues is one place to start. simultaneously, we have a lot of activity going to the public- private partnership that could use a number of these things. the mr. rogers bill is a good example. and we need a good concentrated effort on working on these other programs the senate has started. for example, what do we need to do to get the insurance agencies to be bigger players? >> in what way? >> private insurance is one of the most effective pro-social motivators that we have. people drive better, give up smoking, etc. >> seiberg insurance? >> shourd, so that -- the

problem -- >> seiberg insurance? >> shourd -- cyber insurance? >> sure, the problem that we have is that the shared data runs into antitrust problems. if we could get them to share that, perhaps in a public- private partnership, we would get a realistic view of what the threat is. if we shared data we could get a realistic view of what the threat is. we think this could bring down insurance rates. if you bring down insurance rates, more people by the insurance. and we get a virtuous cycle going on. and we can use insurance to motivate better cyber security investment. >> mr. dix, a question for you,

and you can add on if you want. you mentioned that most businesses, small businesses, is a matter of cyber hygiene. what does that really mean? what can we do as small business people, or whatever? >> again, as i mentioned, you need a comprehensive and sustained awareness campaign that tells the constituencies how to protect themselves from the infection in cyberspace. leveraging resources in federal government, such as the small business administration and the u.s. postal service and other agencies that interact with businesses and citizens every day would be a place to help message that. like we did with h1n1, where we have sustained public services announcements that drive people to get inoculation.

we can drive people to places where they can learn basic best practices, things they can do to protect themselves. if i might add, another piece of the fundamental blocking and tackling is to ensure operational capability that presents something like a national weather service's four cdc capability where we have a picture of what is going on in the network all the time. i raise that because, many of us work together through the national intelligence advisory committee that recognized a joint coordination center, a joint, public-private, operational capability center for prevention and mitigation. we have got to get on top of this. most of our time now spent on recovery. the problem we get into his legal barriers. once we began to try to integrate the capability with

the government, the lawyers told us that they could not talk to us. they could not share this information. we should have an operational capability that has a picture as to what is going on in the network at all times. we have those kinds of data feed available, organizing and having a national weather service or cdc-type of capability is long overdue. >> the delmont time has expired. i believe mr. waxman is next. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. dr. schneck, what special considerations due to the growing number of smart phones and tablet present? and anyone can answer this. >> smart phones and tablets are just small computers. they have the exact same vulnerabilities that all of the other machines you are used to. and they have tons of memory,

like the guidance systems the first powered rockets to the moon. when you think about that technology, if it is not dot secured, it could enable someone to get into your platform. people are wanting to use their home device at work. what happens is adversaries have discovered they can use this through applications like angry birds. there are ways to lock them down. but we manage that worldwide, but you are looking at a massive explosion of devices. these devices leverage the clout because they do not have as much processing power. your personal information, most likely, is all over your phone

if you lose it, you want to make sure you have the remote capability to destroy that. it is a wonderful device, but again, anyone with access to that has access to your personal information. it brings a wonderful new sense to computing, and also some wonderful new dangers. mobility is multiplying. >> every once in a while i talk to hackers just to see what they are up to, and recently, one of them told me that the price of a tool kit to hack and iphone is about $200,000 on the market. four other funds, it is only about $10,000. this will force us to pay more attention to the big service providers, the i s p's, the

cable companies. responsibility will shift away from the edge, away from the consumer to the service provider. >> if you look at metcalf's lot and if you look at what happened with apple and at&t, the value has shifted. it has shifted to the end point. i will give you a good example. the threat that i talked about, going and out of band or using a mobile network is a sure-fire way to stop the kind of transaction today. it is safe and protected. it uses digital signature 3 wireless carrier network and on the mobile device -- through a wireless carrier network and on

the mobile device. that is why it cost a lot more to hack through an ipad koran iphone than a regular mobile phone. -- m ipad corr and iphone than a regular phone. if you think you're going to stop all of this in the network ramadi ip address is no longer the identity. the number-one thing that people fake is who you are, what you are, and the application of who you are. and that is the hardest thing to combat in terms of good guys versus bad guys. he has fake your identity. and no technology, no network can deal with that until they deal with the end point itself. >> i do not think we are in disagreement. the authentication technologies that you are talking about will ultimately depend on the service provider.

>> let me ask you what -- one question. i do not have much time. many of you have indicated that your networks are critical to the infrastructure sectors. how does that relate to this committee addressing cyber security of communications networks? does anyone want to respond? >> in the opening remarks a few of you mentioned something is going on that -- at ntia, at fcc -- that could reduce risk. one of the things that we have talked about is this measure to get service providers to adopt a code of conduct in dealing with malware. the sec has an effort to promote the use of dns security. not to get too complicated, but this is a growing vulnerability.

it is relatively easy to fix. other countries have moved faster than the u.f., something that we could probably do on a collaborative -- then the u.s., something we could probably do on a collaborative spaces. as far as other responsibilities and protocols, you do not want the government creating technology. but you do may be want to coordinate a response. when you look at fcc or ntia chinamasa -- or ntia, this is where you can play a big role. >> with the committee's indulgence, we are all going to ask you about australia, and then we all forgot. would you mind addressing the australia? >> phyllis talked about this as well. in your isp probably have a

pretty good idea of what is going on with your computer at home. they do not do very much about it. bob talked about this as well. there are basic hygiene things that most people do not do. your isp has a fairly good knowledge when you are running across malware, when you are running a botnet. not perfect knowledge, but pretty good knowledge. and in australia -- and they are not the only country who does this anymore -- at one point, they thought the attorney general would come in and tell the isp's what to do. the isp's were not doing anything prepared there was -- for not doing anything. there was a failure of incentive. and australia is a little easier because it is a smaller country. and they said, how about we come up with a voluntary code of conduct that will let us deal with the malware threat.

and with the help and guidance of the attorney general and the australian police, which are roughly equivalent to some of our federal agencies, it works pretty well. it will not deal with an advance threat. name a country that is the biggest supplier of botnets used in cyber crime. it is the united states. it is not because we are criminals, but because we are incompetent in hard offenses. the australian model changes that. we are number one. germans have a lighter approach. you'll get a pop up on the screen that says, we notice you are infected. call this number if you want help. the australians and other countries that do this say, click here and we will clean

your computer for you. a few other companies do not go public. they will this intervene without your knowledge. you have a privacy issue and you want to be careful about that. should we isolate infected users? should we cut them off from the internet? some companies -- countries have said, i'm just going to cut you off. it is a big issue. in these countries, there is a major drop in the rate of infection. this works. it would be useful if we followed the australians, the germans, the japanese, the turks. >> i will give you two other points on australia that are relevant to this group. australia is looking at their energy grade, and granted it is a little different in architecture than the u.s. -- more like ireland and others. but in the process of working with them, we are starting with the infrastructure park and the

actual production side of the energy creation. the one, to lock down within the systems, within the creation of the power, and then going through the export of the power as it extends through the grid to the carriers and all the way to the end point. also, we are involved with other companies here in the u.s. helping them do that. the other piece is, they look at health care. they think that is an area at in terms of being able to have health care card. a novel idea when you get to privacy concerns here. as i said, you cannot have privacy security without policy. >> thank you. thanks for the indulgence of the committee. i will go to the doctor. >> i have a quick point, if that is okay. australia is a beautiful example

of this need for information sharing. know what isnot going on in your computer. they do not watch your banking or your work. they see a behavior from a block of addresses as a footprint as it tries to send traffic as the isp tries to protect you from malware. and from that, they can see where a ridiculously large volume, for example, has come in in a short time frame. it could be infected with certain code, and in the australian model, they let you know. the question becomes, how do they let you know. this is a great picture. it shows how we could get an actual larger picture. that is where we get the pretty weather map picture that mr. dix recommends. also, you need to start looking at these incentives.

how do we incentivize the general public to use these things? most people do not know what is on their computer while they are sleeping. if they knew, they would clean it up. that is why we need these incentives. >> i appreciate that. and i appreciate the committee's indulgence. mr. rogers. >> i know we are short on time. are you familiar with the company that used to be diginotar? >> very much so. >> i think it would be useful for the committee to hear the story and how are a viable company went away within a month >> if you look at the internet when it was created, the little yellow lock that everyone sees on their browser and on their pc, they think they

are saved. very few people know what it means. it is supposed to mean a communication path between you and the website you are communicating with, and who is on each end with that. the problem is that in the ssl world, the identity on each side of that may or may not be who it is reported to be. we co-chair a new standard on that called a standard valuation -- standard evaluation because if you go even with the last week to your suitable site, you will see people hosting and selling that will lock -- that small lock for $20. the problem is that the identification on that is pretty lax. the issue was, this one company that provides the little yellow block, in this case, predominantly in the

netherlands, was breached. and they were breached from iran, just like many other security vendors have been breached. we get a target every day in our little 50-person company with no help from the government, by the way, to defend that. and this person breached that little yellow lock that said who they work and began to take down the government security. and the people in iran said they were using it to say they were google. anyone in iran who was google in content in the country was able to give up to the iranian government whatever they were looking at.

and one government will shut down for basically at least 60 days. those of us in the security world found out it through a browser forum. unfortunately, it was a particular group and it ended our relationship with them prior to that. and we were not notified. >> i think that was a great example of a nation state using its intelligence services to coopt something like that. by the way, diginotar is no longer a company. aipac to this company out of business. >> it was a subsidiary -- it was a hack that took this company out of business. >> it was a subsidiary of a larger business. >> an american company actually

owned it. >> that is right. and i think your point is an important one. we have attempted to be hacked by the same group. we have watched them try that in a loss of months. two other people who own of the locks -- own the locks in the country have been attacked. >> it shows how sophisticated and dangerous it can be if someone has a nefarious purpose other than criminal. criminal is bad enough. this was other than criminal. i see my time has expired. mr. lewis, i would like you to talk about -- it is difficult to get to a place where we have a narrow focus about how to move to the next step. let's talk about the challenges of why it is difficult to even get a very narrow change in the

law. lastly, dr. schneck and maybe mr. dix can talk about this. you talk about hardware and during our system that may be militias and difficult for us to understand -- maybe malicious and difficult how to dealus to understand with it. maybe you can tell us what we ily or whategulator we can do on the part of the government when those things leave this country for nation states. >> those are hard questions. they are great questions, but i'm glad phyllis got one of them. the neutral answer is to say,

when you look at a new technology, it usually takes between 2050 years to figure out how to get it. -- between 20-50 years to figure out how to get it. look at airplanes, steamboats. we are at 18. not doing too badly, i guess. we have some old ideas. they have not gone away. it was in pdd 63, which was in the clinton administration, and it does not work, give it up. there are obstacles to try to fix this, but if it is the electronic communications protection act designed for diyala telephones, you have serious issues here. u.f. privacy issues. -- for dial up telephones, you have serious issues here. you have privacy issues. we have issues that could slow us down and put us at risk.

>> i would like the record to reflect that mr. lewis and i agree. [laughter] first, let me touch on the hardware issue. at last cap, there are 155 different supply chain risk- management issues in the government today. we need to coordinate those issues. organizations like ours, we invest heavily in our branded integrity program because our reputation is how we do business. we deliver concept with our products. one of the things i think this body could help with as we sit here today and deal with this supply chain risk-management problem, the federal government continues to buy from on trusted sources. -- from not trusted sources.

in order to save 5 cents on a wooded, we buy low-cost, low bid. them wonder why we have malicious products in our supply chain. we should be buying from trusted sources and if there is some reason we do not, there should be justification. and liability should accrue for whoever the acquirer is. >> i do agree. i would also add that we look at the supply chain as an issue of product integrity. we do rigorous testing before acquisition of any product. and we rely on existing standards. you want to know, is exactly what you think you bought? it is rigorous testing and expanding some of the testing standards. >> to clarify, we are at risk if we integrate into the u.s.

system not trusted sources of product? i want to make sure i'm clear on that. >> i think it increases the risk. >> i used to do this supply chain stuff when i was in government, sort of on both sides of the table. a couple of things on that -- first of all, it is not easy to hat. you have to assume that the chinese and russian friends are taking the low-cost approach. why should they not do it? the second thing is, why should they -- when you push it off to a global supply chain, we will not be able to get out of that. this is a difficult issue that will force us to think about how to work with foreign suppliers. there is not really a choice here. right now, hacking is so easy, why bother? if we ever manage to improve our defenses, they will switch to

supply chain. >> i am about five minutes over on his time. >> but this is a clinton we can all agree with right here. [boo] >> i appreciate the committee members who are trying to get back on track. >> thank you for putting this panel together. your testimony and answers to the questions have been very informative. i want to follow up on a line of questioning that mr. waxman had to dr. schneck. during formation critics' attacks on smart phones and mobile devices in the future. -- predicts attacks on smart phones and mobile devices in the future. there was some concern about how businesses handle mobile

security. apparently, a study showed that hold the vices create some of the biggest concern for organizations. about 40% of those businesses surveyed had lost or stolen devices that contain critical data. about 30% of mobile users that were studied, we found out they stored their passwords and pin numbers and credit card information on their mobile devices. i'm completely guilty of it. i will he raise it as soon as this hearing is over. >> [inaudible] >> [laughter] one way to tackle this is to make sure that the devices are secure in the first place, so if the employee loses them, the data is secure. or that you can remove that data from a remote source. can you elaborate on what is

being done by a device manufacturers and app developers to secure the products? >>, so far, what we have worked with, there are a couple of things they are doing before delivery. i will take the applications side first. but when people download an application, they rarely think about whether it is secure. the purposely download something on into,ig smiley face annik but it is actually a platform to enter your corporate network. that is one risk. some companies are very careful and only app markets unde approve those that are for sale. others are not as careful.

>> from the pedroia operating system to ios to microsoft, the first thing we are working on with them is how to secure the device itself. if you do not know it is connected to your company, then that is your first issue. the second thing becomes, how do you then work with the applications that go into that phone? each one of our ecosystems do that differently. some use our security or others to make sure they know they are putting that there. they all three have very different testing mechanisms to test those apps in terms of the sandbox to tell us how they go back and forth. and then how you secure content and communication with mobil,

and it is no different than laptops and desktops that we did before. >> the ability to lock, locate, and wipe those devices on demand. >> we are getting close to maybe have a solution to authentication. it has been the holy grail for about 20 years. there used to be one government approved private company in north korea. do you know what they made? they made mobile phone apps. i see a pattern. [laughter] >> just another general question for the panel, you think the fcc has any role in increasing mobile device security? and what should it be? mr. connor. >> absolutely. you look at the sec and the infrastructure is there. i spent 10 years at at&t and another 10 years putting electronic systems into those kinds of companies. you can look at the mobile network as either good or bad.

it cannot stop the crime i talked about today -- if used correctly, that technology can now be broken today. if you think of one governing body trying to own each of these pieces, it is folly. i think doe needs to work with public/private partnership in its domain. i think the fcc needs to work around that ecosystem. the tactics the bad guys are taking against us, the idea there are one size fits all is ludicrous. >> thank you. >> this question is for the entire panel. we will start with mr. qana. -- mr. conner. similar with doctors, we should

heed the hippocratic oath and make sure that in the first place, we do no harm. if you could offer us that advice for legislating, would that be? >> the way i would start is with government employees. i spend a lot of my time with this team and others educating providing quality is a great example that this government got right. -- educating. i think quality is a great example that government ought right. if someone started quality, they would not know what it meant. you hear cost of quality. i hear cost of security. your focus on what cost? the total cost of security, or just the cost to implement something? i would start with the education

in your bully pulpit. the second thing is, start on the inability of businesses to talk to governments or to themselves because of antitrust and the patchwork legislation in the states. i am tired of it being a one-way communication street to intelligence and nothing in return. i understand they legally cannot do it, but if it is a company that is tasked with protecting our government and enterprises and the citizens, it is folly to me that i can only give you information and you cannot give me any. >> two quick things. one is, continued to inspire an environment that supports innovation and investment. and be cognizant of the fact that the gatt -- the bad guys move fast. we need to have speed and agility and our ability to respond. attempting to comply with a compliance model that takes a long time to build and

implement slows us down and is an impediment to our ability to have speed, nimbleness, and agility. >> in 2007, we had an intelligence disaster in this country that has yet to be declassified. in 2008, we were about a week -- we were able to get them out and about a week. last year, we saw the ability to destroy a physical infrastructure using cyber attacks. we have a list of major cyber events. i got tired of people asking why we would have a cyber pro harbor. the list is now up to 90. -- a cyber pearl harbor. the list is now up to 90.

we need to have coordinated the event. >> you think we definitely need legislation. >> i do. and i think there's one thing we can say now that we could not have said five years ago. we now have a pretty good idea how to do this between the experts appear and the agencies that have done a particularly good job. we now have an increased idea how to reduce the risk. >> i agree we need legislation. the question is, what is the legislation that we need? i do ascribe to the a "do no m"theory. the problem we have is that in cyber security world, all of the incentives to favor the bad guys. attacks are cheap and easy and profitable. it is a really terrific business model. defense is hard. we are following the attackers around.

it is hard to show a return on what you invent, and criminal prosecution is virtually nonexistent. understand that you are from dealing -- you are dealing with the invention of gunpowder, like i said before. it is an entirely new thing. you cannot take traditional models and plug them in here. you can take legislation that will do harm, that will take away needed resources from where they need to be. we need a creative, 21st century approach. a lot of what we are seeing in the public policy world is not that. >> thank you. in the last 12 seconds, dr. schneck? >> corlette unleashed the private sector. we built this thing -- let's unleased the private sector. we built this thing. incentivize us so we can still

eat when we get done doing it, but let's build business models around building security from the hardware up, and i think he will see this world changed in a few youryears. >> thank you. i yield back. >> we are going to lock the doors and not let you out until you give us all of the ideas that you give us here that we need here. we will let you out, but i need it in terms of we have got to understand in order to get this right. if you could help us grow down in a jurisdiction that we have, we would appreciate very specific suggestions back. we will go down to ms. matsui from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the system of the most interesting and at scary testimony i have ever heard. i think that, quite frankly, our country does not realize what risks we have. i think the things we hear about

over the news are not necessarily -- it talks about packing, but it is at a personal level that people understand. this could affect our economy, our country, the way we live. i truly believe this education process is going to be very important. and i also believe that people like you have to step up to talk about it in ways that they probably could understand. the cyber security, everybody sort of understand it, but does not understand it. with every advance in technology, we open ourselves up and our daily lives could be impacted so much. i wanted to follow-up on little bit more on the cloud-based services. businesses and governments are now going into the cloud. what are the unique challenges

facing the crowd with respect to cyber security -- facing the crowd with respect to cyber security, and are we prepared and thinking ahead in regard to these challenges? >> it is something that is getting a lot of attention from everybody. i think a lot of people are running before they have thought it through. i think it is very application and business sensitive, depending on what you put in the cloud. some things that you put in there is a a password sensitive. that is fine. but if you are putting a valuable information and intellectual property in the cloud, you have got issues. the security within the cloud is not what it is within the main frame center today. and how do you communicate to the cloud is still a matter of how you choose to implement that. i think that is very naive. >> are we have a place where we could start looking at that and

incorporate how we integrate some of these things into the information sharing activities? >> absolutely. >> we are still ok right now, but right now, you talk about it as a very sexy things. people are still jumping to it. dr. lewis, you mentioned the government should find ways to incentivize companies and dr. schneck was talking about the same thing. what types of incentives would be the most effective, in your opinion? >> four kinds of incentives. there is regulation. we will need some of that, not too much, and it varies from sector to sector. there are tax breaks -- and i mention this to other republican

tasker is in cyber security. they thought this was not the best year to go after that. there are subsidies, and we might need subsidies for research and development and other things. finally, there is a coordinating affect. someone has to lead. you could find this is a good story from the australian example. if you pull these things together and point them in the right direction, they will come up with some good stuff. we have found some good examples of the defense department were that has worked well. regulation, tax breaks, subsidies -- and that might include building something into the rate structure and that could include infrastructure. >> doctor, do you agree? >> not necessarily. i think regulation drive -- draws a box around what you are protecting and takes it away

from research and it shows the bad guys what we are not protecting. anything that allows a company to be creative and invest up front in cyber security -- because the upfront investment than the easier and clear cleanup. we do not realize this, but the small and medium businesses make up 90% of our fabric. to think about where the newest technologies come from, not just cyber, but maybe the next jet engine -- they will not necessarily invest a lot in cyber security when they get that huge grant. but if it is built into that grant, extra money saying you will get this money from the government only if you promise to secure it, and we can provide that. >> government does have a role, though. how do you do this so you all work together?

you are right. the business sector can work together and have solutions, but how do we get to the next place? >> the thing you have to do is go over the legal obligation when you sit with cdo's. they all agree until they talk to their legal counsel. then it went completely dead. nobody wants a public antitrust issue of sharing. and if you go public, you create a standard to be sued criminally as well as zevely. and that is the about -- the -- y. well as civill and as soon as i say something, that is the standard is held to. >> thank you. >> we now go to the

representative from ohio. >> thank you, mr. share. -- mr. chairman. for some of you, those of you that do not serve on the committee, you go home and you say to my delight turned that on or not? -- say, do i turn that on or not? i have been told that as soon as you see the "http coxf" you are safe. are you telling me that is not true now? >> i hate to say that my daughters are on some social networking, and we have our

problems -- we had our problems, about four days to get that thing fixed. i am very cognizant of the fact, of watching that httpf come up because i do online banking. it is one thing that we need to think of. you both mentioned in your testimony the idea of creating trust of relationships online either through authenticated e- mails picked or through white -- authenticated e-mails or through wide listing. could you explain that? >> our focus on trusted relationships and the macro is a little bigger. we all work together, and we do.

i think we are dealing on line with a world that is much what we but that was only the e- mails sector. now you have the mobile vector. the enemy is factor. when you look at relationships, we have 30 different parameters we but at. it was all kinds of things. now you multiplied that. we have 1000 different parameters of trust that we but at. it is what has your behavior been lately. >> continuing to advance the implementation of the identities in cyberspace. it is a step in the right

direction. it is an example of them gathering together to address this. it is a root issue in this entire trusted discussion. there is a collaborative effort under way. it is moving to implementation. it could be a step in the right direction. >> the irony is about this. >> let me go on with this. people are testing what they're doing on the internet. this is what we're talking about earlier. you need to buy from the trusted

source. how do you know that even if you buy from somebody that is trusted that the step is still good? how do you go through unless you are testing? are you testing constantly? >> i will take that first with your permission. you have authorized to issue the shares and sellers that we utilize. that is a place to start from, understanding who those providers are. there is a great deal of war going on in the open group to create a certification and accreditation progress with suppliers to address this issue. the fundamental piece of this is cultural. we are evaluating people on their ability to meet the

schedule. this drives a certain behavior. it does not have security as a paramount foundation of that contact. >> my time has expired. i yield back. >> you are now recognized for questions. >> thank you. this is a general question. the communications security reliability council has been formulating recommendations for best practices to ensure reliability of communication systems. had you see this process contributing to success? what is the role in the coordinated defense? >> i am glad you said that. i was trying to remember. i have gotten all but two of the letters. we have all said that we are

moving to a world where the role of the service providers is going to be more important. that is where they are the lead agencies. we a -- looked at this issue. theywere afraid that's if took a to active of a roll, they might be seen as trying to regulate the internet. they wanted to avoid that. they have taken on an approach that works more of coordination with the experts with developing venues for the private sector and encouraging them to come up with the voluntary approach. one thing i said to the sap a while ago was try the voluntary approach. if it works, great. if it does not work, we need more mandatory measures. it looks like it is working.

congress has some other things they are doing. this is where the service providers and their regulators will be one and the key elements of cyber security in the future. >> anyone else that strikes their in a position to serve in this campaign in coordinating that at the national and system level to help deliver messages to stakeholders. working with carriers to be able to deliver that message. i think there is a key role. >> they are setting a good example. they are reaching out to private sectors, saying what are the best practices. when you talk about the need to

get the house in order, that repeats. they have a group of people really looking at these policies and issues. we never seen that before. this is a good time for them to not only builds on the awareness they launched last spring on the hygiene program but to jump on it for the larger enterprise as an example. >> mr. connor, this is probably what you referred to. your testimony said the report having been affected by cyber attacks, what is the role in preventing the small-business is. >> the networks under penn all of this. -- underpin this. >> it is not always outside or

those attack factors come from. just like organized crime found its way inside, increasingly will have to look at that as an attack factor. it should be something that the sec takes into consideration as we look at how to do that in addition to the filtering. one thing i would caution, i hear a lot of rhetoric around building separate networks. i am old enough that we had separate networks and only had cleared people doing it. to the reliability when things like 9/11 and tsunamis happen, the benefit of multiple networks outweigh the need to protect the isolated network. and do not believe that is a real answer in today's world. >> i will yield back the value of my time. >> we believe mr. blackburn is

next. >> thank you for the panel. we do have two competing panels. let me go with mr. lewis. could you describe the problem with the current implementation of domain name systems and why it is important? what you have heard is the people who designed the internet designed it as a dod network and it thought it would grow out. they did not worry about trust or authentication. we did not have to worry about

this. the domain name system comedy addressing system, it is vulnerable to spoofing. it can be manipulated. you think as far as you can tell on your machine that you are going to a legitimate site. it could be the government of iran or a russian site. you can spoof it. they use communication so there reduce the ability to impersonate another site. >> the challenge with this committee is that it is so high- tech. for people tough peopl understand. a lot of people understand why you have a demand. now they have exploding domain names. this is one for the whole panel.

should i be working to roll it out -- rule it out? >> be where a newfangled toys. it has liabilities better equal to the liabilities we have today. well of the 5-10 years? we hope sooner. -- will it be five or 10 years later? we hope sooner. if it turns green you know you are safe. and someone says your identity is to it is, it is. that is where i put the focus instead of buying authentication technology to taking responsible liability for your identity. if the cost you 500, that is where the poll but starts to make sense. >> does anyone else want to respond? that is fine.

we followed them years ago. dismantling by china and russia and their neighbors. they tend to be very concerned. they are allowing democracy movement to get their word out to communicate. that keeps evolving. the losses governments try to clamp down on that. i have also been concerned about. that is just a statement. it is like a competitive market. people want to get information. it is so we can really regulate.

i serve on the energy committee and he power plants of the time. the opening statement talked about you could be secure if you have a desktop alone and no longer connected. vinifies what votes could and of doing. the power utility system relies so much on data going to rtos. what they are producing is excitable electrons to get on the grid. if that is all we had to worry about we would be fairly safe. it is all the calculation.

>> i testified earlier. we have to start within the power production plant itself. we are working with large manufacturers. you want to know whether the original ones or the ones cunningham, who they are and where they are from. -- or the ones coming in, who they are and where they are from. we need access in both systems and sharing the afteinformation. the third thing we're working with is how that data is shared.

>> to other quick points. it does not make any sense. people bring their iphone to work. the plug it into charge. we have seen that with allegedly isolated air gap networks. they are talking about the networks. this is an avenue of attack. right now when you buy in the password is password and the user name is admin. it does not take long for opponents to figure that out. they look to how they're ever structure affects the internet. the the lawyers to tell you you're not connected. when you do the survey, you find a share. --- find sure.

>> the good news is a lot of these are the same. if you can get some best practices and incentives, they multiplied. authentication is one doctor. -- vector. you have technology in the opponents. this is pretty simple. the only do one job and life. they are an opponent on the system. you can lock down what they do. >> thank you. >> we will now go to ms. blackburn for five minutes. >> thank you all for being here and for your patience with us.

i want to say just a couple of things. i think it is so important. anything we do is going to be passe before the ink is dry on what ever it is we do. another thing, we have spent some time on this committee and a trade looking at the issue. there is the data security and a brief vacation issue. it is a component of what we have here. most people do not realize the vulnerability that exists in their home with a computer that is there. i hear about it a lot with my

district in tennessee with all the songwriters and entertainers and individuals in financial systems. this is compound in every day. aas we look at the privacy issues, and let me ask you about federal preemption. as you look at our standards, i wonder if you have any thoughts of putting in language and making certain that we are working with this. >> i am supportive of preemptive notification requirements. we have 47 different ones.

these are things i have been hammering on. we have to understand that it involves costs. we can have good standards. we do not have to have multiple good standards. we can have the increased security, better privacy. i think that ability to cut through the government's falling all over itself is critical to getting that. i'm very supportive. >> i would tell you it the single largest legislation issue that has bought security this probably california 1386. if you try to encourage yourself, you are safe.

this is the shot that was heard around the world in the u.s.. this needs to be worked with. the second piece i would tell you is the regulation that was just passed about disclosure. it is going to have a profound impact. >> that disclosure is pretty nebulous in terms of being meaningful. as a small business person in terms of what that means to you. >> thank you. i yield back. >> your recognized for five minutes. >> thank you.

to you believe the law enforcement has the tools they need to go after cyber criminals as described in your testimony? >> they do not. if you look at it since that are being made to have the criminal network geared up, i think part of the problem where look at their onetime uses. and less use it every day, at that system is never going to be ready -- unless you use it every day, the system will never be ready. their issue -- interval is treated like a country. we were able to put the passport information so it has biometrics. this country does that do with that. it is first-generation digital.

the second thing it has, and this is all on commercial chips, it was 6000 agents. if they go after a tsunami, they can go on any network included in an internet cafe and can be secure. then access to any interpol office. in all reside on this little card -- it all reside on this little card that 6000 agents use around the world today as they fight crime. it has three different standards and cases that allow them to do their job. it is what he or she uses every day. it is not something you use everyday, it will not be useful at the time of need in some of that. >> we are replacing cyber crime

with where we were in the 30's with the cops caring 30 revolvers. >> worse than that, we are isolated. we are the most at risk. there is no ability to enter work on global capability with the good guys. >> most of us here will remember after 9/11 this issue of technology security, biometrics, was one of the top priorities of the 9/11 commission. we passed the real identification bill. not everybody has found excuses to keep dragging on. we are granting the states for common security. the state are refusing. we have given them money and they say we want to spend it on

other things rather than the first priorities. you think we may want to revisit that whole situation rather than ignoring? >> i spoke after bush addressed the house and senate. other legislators were leading this effort. i spoke at nato after 9/11. we learned how to defend air, land, and sea. we have made progress but the bad guys have made more progress. they can jump across jurisdiction without and no legal barrier. with no legal barrier. >> this is a point where we may want to talk. this is a place for both sides should be able to cooperate. we have a consensus. the obstructionists are on both sides of the aisle, too.

maybe they can look back and see how we can address that issue. i appreciate the fact you draw the line about i am concerned. they brought two interesting things. when we bring that strategy, we do not want to greet a box that has people litigating private sector. we also do not want the bad guys to know how far outside they need to move to avoid it. can you elaborate again how that meet be utilized by the bad guys? -- may be utilized by the bad guys? >> this issue is so vast. if you start saying you implement these five things, the adversaries are always looking at how to get around it. they know their targets. they know what they want.

they spent many months and people to find the intellectual property they want. they get it. it is quite clear that if we say we are going to seal up these gateways and these are the best practices we must follow, that is where the money will go. after that, the money will not go to anything new and different. the adversary always goes outside that. it is just like the industrial control system. they say they are disconnected by you find that put the modems back to a person can monitor the game. there is always a way. we want to incentivize. we're not incentivized to do what is good for the greater good. if you put that money toward innovation, we will end up building better technology.

>> that is a great question. i am less concerned about what we say we are doing. did say anything you want. by the time you do it, they have already figured it out. they're not waiting for us to regulate. the model is very clear as joined forces. we still have strong army, air force, marines, coast guard. they have done their own. they're highly integrated with their suppliers. i served on the joint force advisory board as a private sector person. there is what you do that is public and what you do that is not public. that this house cyber security has to be treated. -- is how cyber security has to be treated. did they have to get their best and brightest. and they had to share what is

public is public and what is not is more important. >> they refer to australia. it reminds me of a story of a notorious australian bush man robber named ned kelly. he was notorious for putting so much armor on so that nobody could shoot him and his armor slowed him down so much that he shot him in the back where he was not armored. that may be very symbolic of the ned kelly syndrome. we create an opportunity for the bad guys to get around us. >> i thank all of our committee members. the value of the content we got from you all is unparalleled. i think my colleague and i will

be reaching out to each of you to say come back to us with what really would work. we got a lot of that. we're going to move forward on this. i think there is an opportunity to look at device manufacturers, perhaps the phone or router side, the education side. we really appreciate what you're doing out there. we appreciate your input to us so we can try to get it right and solve this problem. >> i would say bravo. thank you very much. every member drew so much for your testimony and the answers to our question. it was most helpful. thank you. >> with that, the committee will stand adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> on c-span tonight, the defense department reporters on the war in in afghanistan. then some of the debate in washington over a mandate for health insurance coverage of birth control. we will hear from house republicans, at jay carney and mitt romney. >> tomorrow morning, at the house gavels in at 9:00 eastern. before that, if they discuss the requirement at religious schools and hospitals providing employees with free contraceptives. we will hear from a colorado democrat and a louisiana republican. the congressmen is one of 154 cosigners in the house to send a letter to president obama asking

the a administration to reverse the mandate. "washington journal" like thursday at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> my most important point of view should run, we cannot tell them. it would be better if a month before we announced you were running for president. -- who were running for president. if you is your leader? is a rush limbaugh? -- who is your leader? is it rush limbaugh that they want to fixate on a person and destroy him or her. >> this year's political action conference begins thursday. c-span will cover this through the weekend. what past speakers on line. they are all archived in searchable on line. -- and searchable online.

>> they showed reporters a day the u.s. and afghan forces had the momentum. he expects the true drawdown -- troop drawdown. daniel davis said the u.s. military leaders are painting too rosy a picture of the situation in afghanistan. this briefing is 35 minutes. >> i would like to welcome back to the pentagon briefing room the commander of isap joint command. he joins us of october of last year. previously, he served as the general after serving for two years as commanding journal.

during that time, he joined the task force of 82. he also served as a director of operations for the united states central command and the 69th united states military academy. in addition to his assignments in afghanistan, his support of a rocky freedom, liberia. he travels together a full picture. today he will provide an operational of date. he will make some opening comments and then you take your questions. i will turn it over to you. >> good morning. i would like to make a comment or to up front. then we will take questions. it is good to be here. i look forward to the discussion with you. i plan on giving you an update

on the progress that has been made over the past seven months i have been in by afghanistan by afghan and forces. the combined operation planning efforts for the fighting season and objectives for 2012. as most of the know, it is our responsibility to manage the day-to-day operations for the military operations throughout afghanistan. ijc has 1400 personnel. the six regional commands throughout the country report directly to our headquarters. since returning to afghanistan last summer, i have seen steady progress across the country. the afghanistan government and partnership with the coalition has taken significant steps forward. surely afghanistan will continue to take challenges.

with afghan partners, our strategy remains focused and engage. we have the right plan. we have the momentum. 50% of the afghan population has entered the process of transitioning. did the afghan governments are increasingly taking a leave for their own security and development. all without any significant spike in violence in the areas that had begun. a primary objective is transition of national security forces. i spent a lot of time focused on the afghan security forces and their capacity. they are increasingly demonstrating their ability to protect people. says 80% ofeport the afghan population has respect for the police. others have access to a police

station within 30 minutes of where they live. that is up 42% in 2009. these are favorable perceptions than we have seen in the past. with over 300,000 afghans in uniform, freedom of movement has increased. support bases have been reduced. people are gaining respect for these forces. i believe trust will increase at can force a step into the lead. cobble -- kabul is a great example of where they have a lead in security. they have denied the insurgents objectives. recent examples include the stadium opening and security. they both occurred without a major security incident despite threats. the afghans developed plan 1391. that plan will guide the

combined team operations in 2012 and 2013. it was written by the ministry of defense and director of security. it was translated into english. that is a first. it is an important step. the focus of this plan is to enable the afghans to take the lead and to hold and expand our gaze. as the afghan security forces continue to grow and develop, so have the programs and capabilities of the professional life. the courses are now established and literacy training is integrated into the afghan forces of both institutional and land levels. afghans index 70% of the training on their own spirit afghans training -- afghans

perform 7% of training on their own. afghans training afghans. i emphasize the following priorities of mine for the campaign. we must relentlessly pursue the enemy. we must sustain a tactical defeat of the insurgents in the south and expand the security zone around kabul. accelerate the development of the afghan security forces and move them into the lead. assist efforts to improve public administration. hiring and protecting civil servants in the delivering of basic services to the people. communicate visible and recognizable progress. it is really communications.

maintain our agility and posture both in the coalition and the asf. the coalition has continued to be essential to our success in afghanistan. january 2012, the defense ministry's began implementation of been operation that means good news. it to expand on the success of the predecessor. it will focus for kiss on deepening and fix -- focus on deepening them. we will secure major population locations. we will protect the routes that connect them. we will connect kabul to canada are -- khandahar.

all of these activities will be bolstered by the introduction of assistant teams in the coming years. it is an honor and privilege to serve with our afghan partners, especially the brave soldiers and civilians of this great coalition. i am humbled by the sacrifice by this team. we are unified in our effort. we're confident in our success. with that, i welcome your questions. >> i would like to ask you to respond to the article that was published by the to that dan davis in which she says that -- he says leaders have been misleading the public about the degree of progress. he says that there has been a

lack of success on virtually every level. >> i read the article. of this. person's view from my personal point of view, i talked to commanders and soldiers. i have assessments from others that it on the battlefield that every week. i take in a lot of data to determine my objective. i am confident in my personal view that our outlook is accurate. i read the article. i think as you read the article, i do not doubt what he describes.

there's the occasion of watching policeman in a departed area. i think those things happen. we have one that has doubled in size. what i would say is that we have to be very accurate about what we see. and what we understand the battlefield to be, but not treating it as we want it to be. i worked very hard personally at that. i also pay attention to the folks who perhaps disagree. i look for people that will argue with me. >> one specific follow up. he said they do not respect the afghan forces. >> i disagree with that. i have seen enough of it to know. when i talk to soldiers, let's

take an american soldier. the private will tell me that they are not that good. a private is looking at it from the perspective that he is trained. the standards are different. i can tell you from experience and from feedback from others, the soldiers will fight. particularly at the company level. there's no question about that. they will be good enough to secure their country and to counter the insurgency they are dealing with now. will they be of the standards that we have for our soldiers? no. at least not the conventional forces. their response forces, the commandos, are being trained at a very high level. that is one thing. it is a bright picture. their response forces are really coming along. that'll be quite an asset for the country here in the future. >> you talked about the afghan

forces increasingly taking the lead. the news said he hoped they would step into the lead. -- then you said you hoped they would step into the lead. then you said you would move them into the lead. can you square that? how many can operate independently? have any of the afghan forces than any independent operations? >> as we look forward here, developments of this is my second priority. i am pressing commanders to put them in the lead as soon as they can. the earlier we get them, the better we have a matter of how they are doing. we also know how to improve them. i want to do that while we have more forces on the ground. right now we give probably about 30% of the operations we do are

independent operations run by a patrol of afghans on their own. they are in the lead. they may have a coalition force with them. they are in the lead. about 300. we do have a number of forces 30%.are - - we do have a number of forces that are taking the lead in going out. it is in the early stages to be frank. if you look at the numbers, we have several categories. independent with advisers is the top one. we will be able to provide advisory groups. we have 29 right now at the highest rating. a relatively small number. out of the total? i do not have it right here on me. you have got probably -- i would

be taking a guess. i can get it to you in a minute. that is probably 1% to be honest. it is a low number. if the go to the second number, 42%. tibet has been growing. that is what you're trying to do. -- if you go to the second number, 42%. that has been growing. that is what we are trying to do. >> the total training will break down into advising teams. talk about what you expect them to do and how you expect them to move this forward. >> as we move forward, we're sending our forces out. these advisory teams will come in, connected to a coalition for great. they have a combat force they are connected to. -- or a brigade.

they have a combat force they are connected to. we maintain our connectivity to the afghan forces as we fan out. we provide enablers to them. we also maintain rsa in the battlefield by deploying these. these forces will be deployed differently in each of battlefield. adobe a regional commanders call. they will make the calls -- it will be a regional commander's call. they will make the calls. he may seek an advisory team that is 18 per cent on their own -- you may see an advisory team that is 18 per cent on their own. -- persons on their own. we have to make some force protection assessment about the

afghan units. then we will deploy them in that manner. they will all be a little bit different. we will begin this year. >> thanks for digging our questions. the next-- taking our questions. the next deadline is at the end of the summer. can you spell out for us, is this going to be a gradual drop out are well that the steady and a sharp drop off as the deadline approached? can you respond to something the admiral talked about yesterday? has the number of u.s. troops in afghanistan redraw, that it will become a more special operations force theatre. >> we have another 23,000 u.s.

that we bring out between now and the end of september. we will begin some of that in the springtime. i do not want to discuss the pace of the withdrawal. we will be at 68k. i believed that we can get to that, and maintain the momentum of the campaign. we can continue to drive on in september. we have been working that hard. the second one had to do with the special operations forces. the special operations forces have been a civic and part of this campaign. they will continue throughout the campaign. both in what they bring to the fight in terms of their own special capabilities, particularly against the select leaders. also in training their response

forces that i talked about. all these three different things that they bring equality to the campaign. it is very important. >> will they pay a larger role as the number of troops go? >> it remains to be seen. we are working on the truth right now. they will play an important role. >> the secretary of defense has said that he hopes the u.s. combat mission in afghanistan could and by the middle or latter part of next year. is that the u.s. military plan? is that the gold? are you under marching orders to get that done that's possible is that? -- ehud under march orders to under to get that

done? is that possible? >> in 2013 we should be in 5, it put 100% of the afghan population beginning the transition to full afghan security. we do plan a transition as we go through that. in the transition is to be as i described. it'll be a transition from today where we are in the lead. we are partnered with like units. we will be moving into afghans taking the lead with partners and then smaller security force assistance. then farther down the road with afghans fully in the lead.

there are a lot of things that impact that as far as conditions on the ground. we see that happening because of the transition. we would hope to be pretty far along. i will say we see combat as part of what we're doing. it also be a combat role. >> with all this public discussion about the and a of combat, at the end of negotiations and prisoner swaps, do you get any sense that the taliban is sitting back and saying "they will be out of here and we will take over." >> as we watch the taliban, for

instance this past summer and fall, they were public about the fact that their intent was to take back the river valley and their home in the southern part of afghanistan. they tried to do that. they were not successful. they were unsuccessful with even reaching the tempo they had done in the past or they intended to reach. what we have now is they're looking at the same thing here this next year. i do not see any indicators if they decide to sit back. i thing they are still sitting on their track of trying to attack our forces and to defeat us. i do not think they're sitting back at all from what i can see. >> the united nations has said the civilian deaths in 2011 where 8% from 2010. do you dispute those figures?

how does that square from what you have seen? >> these figures in terms of the increase in casualty's i think are correct. there are a couple of different numbers that are relatively close. there has been an increase. i would point out that if you go to the report, at the increase is abotu 77% of the casualties = increase is about 77 % of the casualties were caused by the enemy. >> [inaudible] >> i would tell you that across the battlefield, when you look

at afghanistan for instance, there is a freedom of action that they have. the freedom of action they showed today is increasingly ieds and suicide bombing. they did not have the capability to take is on directly. they changed it because they're unable to do it. do not know if i say it is an increase. they have increased the use of suicide bombers for instance. it went up about 80%. one in three of the afghan civilians injured were caused by any ieds -- enemy ieds. you have an enemy who said he is concerned about the people.

yet over the years you have seen a steady increase of that happening. on the other hand, we work hard to drive down the civilian casualties. it did go down 4% this year. we will continue to try to drive it down. >> how badly as the taliban really been hurt? there has been a report on the integration -- interrogation of prisoners. they said they had survived essentially intact. >> i think they have been hurt. i will try to describe how. we know that they cannot generate the tempo they had in the past. they did not reach the tempo they had a year before. in terms of their ability to generate capabilities, they are down -- they are complex but

tax. they are down 36% compared to last year. the other activities are down usually between 13 and about 25% here. these are indicators. they're having a hard time generating the action they think they need to. we know there is good dissension within the ranks, particularly between the mid-level commanders and senior commanders. the senior commanders stay intact and continue to expect their mid-level leaders to increase the fight. i think without full knowledge of how tough the fight is for the taliban on the other side. to the point, while we have had this influence and we have been able to drive down insurgencies

ability to generate capacity, we have to see that continue to go down. we want to continue to drive it down. we want to see that continue to go down. they have a -- a trip -- they have a regional interests -- capability.native >> in particular, there's the tax could defeat of the insurgents. do you measure the influencing territory? you describe what metrics you look like to see whether you are making progress. >> in the first week, we have a

process that is quarterly. it collects a lot of data. it collects data from are subordinate units and other agencies that are operating with in afghanistan. it said the fabric of afghanistan, if i can say it that way. we focus primarily on red entail that deals with the enemy. -- intel that deals with the enemy. we set up the dominant group which is our intel center. it is more focused on the afghan populace and perspectives on changes and those areas. there are perceptions of people. they look at things that can

give as indicators as to whether or not the people are leading a life that gives them the freedom to get around it to continue with the business to go to school. including that, we go into governance, it provision of basic services, rule of law, the capability of the district and provincial governor. i think it is pretty thorough. it is pretty straightforward. it gives me a good snapshot of the reaction and perspectives of the people. >> given the article, the problem is we do not have the metrics. why don't you share them with us? then we know whether you are making progress. >> there are a lot of things in there that go to informing us operationally.

we prefer not to make the public and make a public to the enemy as well. that is the answer. we can probably do better in providing some of that. i will take a look at that. that is thethat. that is the way we do the business. there are other agencies who look at afghanistan. back district by district and look at where we disagree, and why. over all, there has been a steady trend in improvement in those districts, by district, in afghanistan over time. if i could, i will give you one of the data point. operation, what i just mentioned, the operational level. it was written this year and just put out by the afghans this month. it was written by then. we had written it in the past.

we had translated it. we did it the other way. how do they see the fight? do they see it the same way we do? do they see the enemy the same way we do? in doing that, they produced a map of afghanistan, district by district, that displayed in their call of the situation based on their capacity and the enemy's threat in that area. they told us, we think we can hold this area with the police. we think we can hold this area with the police and our army. these of the areas where we know we need your help. we have that to compared to ours. they were not that far off. it is encouraging when you see it come from them separately. i think we take a pretty severe look at it. >> how fragile l., reversible,

in durable, are the improvements you have seen on the ground? what they doing to adjust to the new tactics in the past six months, would of a term it has been? the ied is -- whatever term it has been paid the ie. the ied's. are you doing anything to do training for the security forces with the leaders? >> first, to the reverse ability. as you look at the improvement, the great improvement, since -- they are moving along at a company level. they will fight. what we have to do is first we have to look at the leadership part. i am working hard with the fence, with the chief's death of their army, -- with defense,

with the chief staff of the army. where you have a good leader, that organization will continue to move forward. that is the first thing, to make sure it is sustainable. the second one is one of the toughest threats is logistics. for their army and their police to be sustainable, we have a good deal of work to do in establishing a logistics system they run and operate. that is moving along well. it has a good deal of work to do, primarily, at the upper level. once you can get the parts and supplies to the lower level, they are creative. they are going to make sure they get things fixed. we have to get the entire thing working. that is part of the sustainability, leadership and logistics, is what i would tell you. >> can i get a quick clarification?

there was a pretty serious indictment on military leadership. it was called truth and lies about afghanistan. you said, you have no doubt some private swiss sang the things that were included in this report. now you talk about this quarterly report, can you explain why there is such a disparity between your quarterly report and what the private companies on the ground are telling us? >> you are taking an individual incident. as you go out across the battlefield, i can go to units that are struggling. there is no doubt about it. i can go to many that are doing well. we have an army that we have doubled in size. you have a diversity here between what you get on the field. i think that is part of it. i think there are quarterly

report. we take that as a whole. we take a lot of different aspects. personally, my opinion is, i am optimistic about this cautiously. i have presented things to you. i am a realist and out of this will be. we have things, logistics -- i am a realist about how tough this will be. we have things, logistics, those things are tough. this is a tough fight. i am confident it can be done. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> i have a lot of work to do. [laughter] >> we began coverage tomorrow of

the conservative political action conference. there is a's session includes that -- presentation by rick perry, john boehner, herman cain, and rand paul. live coverage is on c-span 3. on friday morning, the live coverage begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern. we will also hear from rick santorum, mitt romney, and newt gingrich. more video and schedule information is available on our web site, c-span.org. >> should not hear president have the highest moral and ethical standards and be an example to our children and young people? ask yourself that question. should not his life make him a role model for your future children? should anyone you elect to this

office always keep his promise? >> as candidates campaign, we look back at 14 men who ran for the office and lost. go to our web site, c- span.org/thecontenders, to see video of the contenders. >> do they not have the right to protest and revolt against a government they feel does not serve their interests? who appointed us to sacrifice the lives of young americans trying to weigh in on this side of a government that represents 15% of the people and has no support from the other 85%? >> c-span.org/thecontenders. >> republicans said they would try to overturn things in the care act.

house speaker john boehner commented on the issue on the house floor. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the speaker: my colleagues, in recent days americans of every faith and political persuasion have mobilized in objection to a rule put forward by the obama administration that constitutes an unambiguous attack on religious freedom in our country. this rule would require faith-based employers including catholic charities, schools, universities and hospitals to provide services they believe are immoral. those services include sterilization and abortion -inducing drugs, devices and contraception. in an -- in imposing this requirement, the federal government has drifted dangerously beyond its constitutional boundaries, encoaching -- encroaching on religious freedom in a man that are affects millions of americans and harms some of our nation's most vital institutions. if the president does not reverse the department's attack

on religious freedom, then the congress, acting on behalf of the american people, and the constitution, that we're sworn to uphold and defend, must. the house will approach this matter fairly and deliberately through regular order and appropriate legislative channels. because it has primary jurisdiction on the issues involved, the energy and commerce committee is taking the lead on the legislative process that will be necessary to enact an effective and appropriate solution. chairman upton convened a hearing late last year and began laying the groundwork for legislative action when this flawed rule was first proposed. i welcome his efforts to consider all possible options as his committee proceeds with its efforts. this attack by the federal government on religious freedom in our country >> the contraceptive issue was also the main topic of a press

briefing held by senate republicans. senate minority leader mitch mcconnell kicked off this meeting. >> it was kind of a slow day today. all of the news makers or someone else. down at the baseball park i heard. is that right? they are at the nat's stadium?

we had a republican conference this morning to discuss essentially the jobs issue, our economy, and the way forward. our new conference chairman, john thune, conveyed that issue. i will call on him in a minute. we would like to address another issue that has risen in the context of obamacare. he has gotten the government involved in all aspects of our health care. he may have gotten us involved in other things as well. we have three senators with us who have been involved in developing a response to the most recent discovery of yet another government interference with our lives in obamacare. we will do that shortly. with that, let me call on our conference chair, john thune. >> we had a good discussion this morning. the thing you are reminded of is we are an entrepreneur we have a lot of people with really

good ideas about how to move our country forward. the one thing i think i would say and everybody agrees on is the president's policies have made our economy much worse. because his policies have made our economy worse, he is trying to distract and divide americans by and talking about divisions and those sorts of things to get groups of americans pitted against each other. we think there is a better way. we ought not be talking about how to redistribute the pie, but how to make it bigger for all americans. how to expand our economy and create jobs. this morning was about coming together on those key agenda items and hopefully be able to work with the democrats on that, although it looks very much like they do not want to do a lot this year. i think the leader on their side would like to insulate his leaders on making it difficult

vote in an election year. the path forward in terms of how we are going to deal with spending, debt, jobs, and the economy -- we are at a loss right now as to why the democrats are not going to produce a budget for the fourth year in a row. there are some things we can get done between now and the election. the american people expect us to act. we do not have a lot of time. the issues we face are big and the consequences of inaction are great. my hope is we will see some willingness on their part to work with us to put policies in place that will make it less expensive and less difficult to create jobs for small businesses rather than making it more expensive and more difficult, which is what we have seen with the obama agenda. we have some folks who been on

the lead on religious liberty. it is pretty clear we have, in this country, a heritage. the people who founded this country left other parts of the world because of the issue of religious persecution. that is the distinction about america. religious liberty is not something that is known in other parts of the world -- like the middle east. what we have seen from this administration is the trampling of the first amendment protection and a systematic dismantling of religious liberty for people in this country. we believe that the president and, hopefully as a administration, will walk back from that. this is clearly an issue that has gotten the attention of not only the people who would subscribe to various religions -- catholics, protestants -- but those perhaps who are not that religious because they see this as an attempt to grow government and make it bigger, more expensive, and more

interested. that is one of the very things we warned about when obamacare was passed in the first place. kelly ayotte. >> we have seen with the president's health care bill as the regulations are released by health and human services unprecedented -- if we put religious institutions and faith based organizations in a position where they have to comply with government mandates that violate the principles of their faith, it is an affront to what we stand for as americans. also, this is not a women's rights issue. this is a religious liberty issue and it can apply to all faiths. i have for from my constituents who are deeply concerned about this. we need to respect the rights of conscience are all religions.

when you look at what this administration has done, it has awakened a whole group of people who are deeply concerned about an unprecedented expansion of government into issues that we have always left in the quiet people's homes, churches, and faith based institutions. i will say this also. what the administration has done is really unprecedented. both parties have respected religious liberty. if you look at what was signed into law in 1993 -- the religious freedom restoration act -- what this administration has done also violates not only the spirit of that law, but also the letter of that law, which was signed into law by a democratic president. again, i would say this is

unprecedented. this is not a women's rights issue. this goes to the fundamentals of our constitution. i would call on the president to overturn this health and human services regulation, to stop infringing on religious freedom, and to change the direction on what we have seen as an unprecedented expansion of obamacare. >> what we have is the administration trying to act like they are backing away from this bad policy. jay carney saying we want to talk about this for a year. we have given them a year to think about it. that may be the most offensive part of this whole idea. you have to do things that are contrary to your faith principles. by the way, we are going to give you a year to figure out how to accommodate that change. it is offensive, it violates the first amendment of the

constitution, it shows what happens when the government thinks they can not only defined health care, but deliver health care. it should not be allowed to stand. it is fundamentally a religious principle issue. the government is saying here is the specific kind of coverage you have to give your employees. this particular role is not even about health care. it is about the coverage you have to give your employees. there was recently a supreme court case -- 9-0 -- on hiring at religious and institutions. some say we give the church an exemption, which shows how little they understand the whole state based institutions of the country. the church pakistan will be on the building of the church. if it is a church-run school, a church-run university, a day care center, a jewish day care center or muslim community

outreach effort -- all of those things are part of that faith based community. the supreme court just ruled 9- 0 that those institutions have specific protected hiring rights. they also have all kinds of other different, specific, and protected rights because of who they are in because of the constitution. you cannot pass laws and rules that violate constitutional principles. that is what this would do. that is whether it is such an outrage. it is one of many instances that could occur if you begin to think the government can interfere in these areas. it is about religious liberty, not about a specific individual application of that liberty. it is about religious liberty. we want to look at the rights of conscience, which were

mentioned at the constitutional convention itself as one of the reasons for the first amendment. i understand people's outrage and will join me in the congress and believed soon there will be a number of democrats telling the administration not to go down this foolish path. do not try to turn america into something it is not. do not think you can let the government control the faith views of the american people. >> this that has nothing to do with it right versus left. this is straightforward. this is about the government of the united states telling a faith based organizations they have to pay for something they teach their members should not be doing. it is that simple. if the answer is yes, then this government can reach all other kinds of results. i think the vast majority of

americans will tell you that the government of the united states should not go in and tell a church-based organization that they must pay for something that their faith teaches the members not to do. that is what this issue is about. that is why commentators on the left and right are saying this is wrong. people in the white house to adopt a comfortable with it. the solution is for the president to say maybe we went too far. we have heard from a lot of people and we will reconsider this position. this does not have to be one of the issues. all the president has to do is reconsider the decision ended knowledge that maybe they went too far. i hope that is what will happen. if it does not, i hope the senate and the house will act on it. the american people are asking us to predict that is an important issue.

[speaking spanish] [speaking spanish]

>> [unintelligible] >> i guess what i am suggesting -- what is an illustration is doing with regards to our economy, it is pretty clear the growth and expansion we are seeing in government is leading us to more of a welfare state. i think decisions like this move us towards secularization of our country. it seems to me they are suggesting this regard for the basics, core beliefs of the american people.

these beliefs are not something people have fought for over the years. it is what brought us to this country in the first place. it ought to be the thing we -- we are concerned about every aspect of our constitution, but if we are not willing to protect our constitution and the reason people came to our country in the first place, i do not know what kind of country we are. this is an affront to the constitution in my view. >> i want to give an example of something that happened earlier this year. the conference of catholic bishops previously held the grant. basically, the career employees at health and human services, they gave the conference of catholic bishops the highest ranking on addressing the issues.

the administration went as far as changing the criteria of the grant to make sure that faith based organizations that got the highest ranking would not receive it. when i see something like that, i say to myself that is something that is troubling because objectively i would question it. that is another example of the administration of overreaching. >> [unintelligible] >> if you listen to their compromise, they are going to talk to them in a year and figure out how they can comply to this world. go back and listen to exactly what they said yesterday. we will give them a year to see how they can comply with this role. it was not a discussion on how we can change the rule or walk away from this. the white house does not need

to do this. whether it is catholic bishops not getting a grant or hospitals being told if you not provide all services, we do not reimburse you for any services -- this is systematically happening across the board. this is something that struck at the heart of these big institutions that provide lots of health care and lots of education. they are the ones driving this debate. not us. it was the catholic bishops that sent the letter to every parishioners, i think, in america for the last two weeks. or the catholic chaplain of the office sent a letter that would initially not be read. this is a huge issue and if you listen to what they are saying, they are just try to take the subject and kicked it down the road for a year, which may be why they made it a year to start with. >> anything about the legislative response?

you have introduced two different bills -- >> we are discussing the appropriate response. the story centers you heard from are involved in those discussions. we will let you know when we decide what approach we are going to take. >> [unintelligible] >> would you repeat that question? >> [unintelligible] >> there are also other reports that he vetoed the bill.

that is not what this is about. this is about religious liberty. you can try to turn it into all the political discussion you want. this is a first amendment american right. it has nothing to do with who said that where and who said that win. it is about this issue right now. the conscience protection lot that senator ayotte and senator rubio signed predicted the path of the president would be on. this is something we have tried to talk about for weeks now. >> [unintelligible] >> we are obviously very concerned about the americans being held. i issued a statement yesterday with senator mccain and senator lieberman. right now the egyptian

government needs to understand how serious we are about resolving this issue. we are in a position where they could be in jeopardy. they have an opportunity to correct this by obviously releasing the americans and resolving this with our country. we have a very important relationship with egypt and i want to see that relationship repaired, but it is up to them to act right now. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> reporter's question white house spokesman jay carney at the daily news briefing. this is 15 minutes. >> on the contraception issue, speaker boehner is promising to repeal the rule through legislation.

i am curious about your reaction to that. if that were to happen, will the president veto it? does he feel that strongly? >> there is a lot of speculation about the question. on this issue, from the very beginning we have said we would work with individuals who of concerns as we were to implement the law. on january 20, when this decision was announced, secretary sebelius said "we will continue to work with religious bridge during this transition to discuss their concerns. the 28 states have similar contraception coverage requirements. some states do not even have the exemption which this provision requires our churches and houses of worship. we want to work to implement this policy in a way that is

sensitive to their concerns. let us be clear -- we are committed to ensuring that women have access to contraception without paying any extra cost, no matter where they work. >> while you are planning to work with the groups who have concerns, congress, at least the house, are planning to undo the role. >> right now we are focused on the implementation of this rule and doing what we said. on january 28 when secretary sebelius announced it -- we will work with those concerned to see if there is a way to implement the policy to make sure women everywhere have the same level of health care coverage and the same access to preventive coverage, but to do it in a way that would allay some of these concerns that have been at express. been at express. as you know, the president has worked with churches and

organizations that do a lot of good work. he is very sensitive to concerns like these and he wants to find a way to implement this important role because he is committed to making sure women have access to this coverage. he wants to find a way to implement it. it can allay some of the concerns that are expressed. that is why this transition period was announced at the same time the rule was announced. time the rule was announced. >> is the white house hopeful of having some sort of solution in place? >> i do not want to predict a date by which this process might produce a result. i think it is best to let the

process take place. there are ways. i think people in the broader community who have been looking at this issue have been talking about the fact that there are ways to approach this that would ensure the rule is implemented so that women have access to these important health care services no matter where they work. they work. i do not want to get into whether this approach might work or that one, who might feel better about it if this solution were put forward -- we are not at that point in the process. >> negotiations same bog down on the payroll tax.

i am curious what the white house -- are you confident it will get extended? is there a genuine and nervousness that this might expire? >> we continue to be confident that congress will pass the extension of the payroll tax cut for the rest of the calendar year. it is still inconceivable to us that congress would want to raise taxes on 160 million americans on march 1. americans on march 1. americans need that extra money to pay bills, to make ends meet. to pay bills, to make ends meet. there is an element of deja vu to this process. i think it is clear what is needed to get done. it is clear from the economic reports we have had in the last

several months that the economy is growing and producing jobs. we are moving in the right direction and congress should not muck that up. faults of the hill me to act without delay and without drama to get this done. but leaders on the hill feel extending the payroll tax cut is a good thing to do it. it is a good thing to do for hard-working americans. democrats obviously agree. the president strongly agrees that we ought to get this done. we still have time to work on this and we hope congress focuses and gets the work done. let's mix it up. >> on contraception -- it is >> on contraception -- it is not just the speaker and mitch

mcconnell, the candidates have seized on it, including mitt romney. they see an opportunity to not only drive a wedge in the work of some democrats. does the president feel he is vulnerable to that? >> the president is focused on putting in place the right policies for women across the country. country. he is focused on finding a balance sensitive to the concerns expressed by some religious groups. the former governor of massachusetts is an odd messenger on this given that the services this rule would provide for women around the country are the same provided in massachusetts when he was governor, including

contraception, including coverage with no co pay or deductible. the religious exemption for houses of worship and churches, but not to universities and hospitals. mitt romney is criticizing the president for pursuing a policy that is virtually identical to the one that was in place when he was governor of massachusetts. >> had the president commented on rick santorum on the issue? [laughter] >> i do not think he is commented. >> the evangelical report on catholics who were opposed to

this -- i go to jail rather than violating what god commands us to do. he has a lot of twitter followers. are you worried that that will rally the republican base? >> we are not worried about republicans or democrats being a political component of this. we are concerned about making sure that women get access to these important services, that women are treated equally around the country regardless of where they work, but we are very sensitive and understand the concerns that have been expressed. that is why as part of the original announcement of this, secretary sebelius put in a process for further discussions

to be held that will address some of these concerns and maybe allay some of them. i cannot sort of itemized or give great detail on what those discussions will look like. the full implementation of this policy does not take place until august 2013. this conversation is only just under way, but it is important to note that the president takes those concerns seriously and is committed to the policy. we will press forward with these discussions to see if there is a way to move forward in implementing the policy. i want to get out of the front row and then come back.

you bet. mr. walton. >> what has been the president's reaction to this reaction about the contraception issue? was he surprised at the reaction of both political and religious? >> as i have been saying, the president understands these concerns. that is why he agreed with the approach the secretary sebelius took that sought that appropriate balance, that made sure there was an exemption for churches and houses of worship, churches and houses of worship, itemized in some states of the country, and why he supported the part of this that required more discussion to be had as a way of implementing this for institutions and groups that have expressed concerns.

i think he understands and understood from the beginning why this is a sensitive issue and it informs his decision in the way he has. >> is there any sense of how discussions will take place? is there any sense of who would talk to who i am trying to come up with some sort of a resolution? >> i do not have a lot of individuals involved in those types of discussions. discussions involving health care policy would normally include folks who do health care policy in a variety of places in the administration. looked at the kind of conversations that will take

place in terms of the policy. place in terms of the policy. >> there were reports yesterday that looking for a way to implement the policy was a way to compromise. tell me why that should be seen as an attempt to find a compromise? >> i want to be clear that the president is committed to implementing the policy that will ensure women across the country, no matter where they work, will have access to the same health care coverage and the same preventive health care services, including contraception. it is also true and has been true since the day this was announced that we intend as an administration, as secretary sebelius said, to work with those who have concerns about this to see if there are ways to implement that policy.

these are some of those concerns and both are true, but i wanted to be clear yesterday and i want to be clear today that the commitment to ensuring women have access to these important health care services remains very strong. >> it is not a compromise because you will not walk back on access without a co pay? >> right. >> there is also a difficulty within the pentagon. the army chief of chaplains felt a letter from the archbishop may lead to disobedience. disobedience. >> my understanding is the chaplains were absolutely free to express their opinions about this and did. i would refer you to the defense department, but i would

certainly hope in reporting on this you note that the chaplains are free to express their opinions. >> can you confirm that the president's former chief of staff encouraged the president not to make this decision, but the president listened to his senior advisers? >> i will not get into internal deliberations and who is on which side of the discussions and debates internally. i will say, broadly speaking, the reports that i am certain people were against this issue is an accurate both broadly and specifically. i will not engage in a guessing game about who thought which way on what. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> presidential candidate mitt romney responded to the

contraception mandate when you talk to reporters in atlanta. this is 10 minutes. >> did he get your picture? good. very good. let's see -- it is good to be back in georgia. i had a great experience in nevada. the three last night, not as good. congratulations to rick santorum on a good night. we are looking forward to the games ahead. we think we will pick up the delegates we need to get the nomination. we are feeling pretty good. >> [unintelligible] >> we expected a long process. you heard me say over some months now, senator mccain after winning florida, they went

on to lose 17-18 contest after that but was able to put the delegates together. there are big states coming up with a lot of delegates. we will compete actively there. as you know, we did not devote a lot of money or time to the states yesterday. we were spending our time and money in florida and nevada. senator santorum took a different course. he left florida and nevada and went to the other states. he was able to reap the rewards of that. >> [unintelligible] >> maybe we can meet senator santorum where we can see head-

to-head. there will be places where he will win and places where i will win. there is no such thing as coordination of president to politics. it is meant to be a long process. so far we are doing pretty well. >> do you agree or you have a problem with conservatism? >> we have eight very strong conservative base in new hampshire, florida, and nevada. those are places i campaigned at. i believe getting more votes

going back to the days of ronald reagan in nevada. people of different backgrounds different backgrounds with strong faith and strong conservatives have been supporting me. [no audio] >> there is an exemption under the competition for religious conscience and religious organizations. when i was governor, we had a piece of legislation for the morning after pill coverage.

it was pretty modest. it affected catholic institution, catholic hospitals. i vetoed that. before i became governor, there was also a measure which required insurance policies in massachusetts to include contraceptives. after i became governor, we work on a health care plan. i worked to remove those mandated coverage is, such as contraceptive coverage. i have steadfastly [unintelligible] i worked closely with the archdiocese in boston and met with cardinal o'malley. we did our best to [unintelligible]

>> [unintelligible] >> as with south carolina, we took a lot of incoming in south carolina. obviously senator santorum was able in minnesota. i was not there to respond. i will clearly make the differences between myself and my opponents very clear. this is an interesting

opportunity for the american people. some feel the republican party lost its way in the past. we spent too much, borrowed too much, earmarked too much. rick santorum and newt gingrich were a big part of that. under new gingrich, earmarks doubled. rick santorum continues to defend earmarks. he voted to raise the debt ceiling, i believe, five different times. government spending increased by some 80%. republicans spent too much money, borrowed too much money. rick santorum and a new gingrich me to be held accountable. the people are unhappy.

people spent their careers in washington borrowing, spending, and earmarking. i am the only guy who has not spent time in washington. senator santorum and speaker gingrich are the very republicans who acted like democrats. when republicans and act like democrats, they lose. speaker gingrich had to resign. senator santorum lost by the biggest margin since 1980. borrowing, spending, and earmarking is not a good combination if you are a republican. >> [unintelligible] >> mr. carney needs to change his history. that happened before i was

governor. when i became governor, i worked to remove it from the health care plan. we removed all of the mandated coverage. quite clearly he needs to understand, that was a provision that got there before i did. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> senate democrats held this press briefing on capitol hill, outlining their position on the birth control coverage mandate. we will hear from senator barbara boxer, frank lautenberg, and mr. bloom and fall. this is 25 minutes. >> ok. having had a laugh at my politically challenged self, i want to get to this very serious issue. we are here to stand up for the

women of america who are guaranteed access to free, preventive care do to help insurance. we want to thank president obama for making that possible. because of the new health care law, insurance plans will provide breast cancer screenings, hiv screenings, cervical cancer screenings, and free contraception if the women want to avail themselves of all of these preventive services. if they do not want them, they do not have to have them. if you want them, you will be able to have them free. the institute of medicine, which is not in politics, it is in health care, recommends access to free birth control among those prevention benefits. when a woman goes on birth control, she gets a great health benefits and her child is

much more likely to get prenatal care. it leads to healthy families and healthy babies. now, the other thing -- i hope we repeat this over and over -- some women are prescribed birth control for non contraceptive reasons, to stop their menstrual cycle, to stop endometriosis, to stop a variant says. some even need it for skin conditions. it is medicine. now, the republican leaders of congress at the highest levels want to take away their health

care. contraception allows families to plan for their children. again -- healthier moms, healthier kids. here is a little known fact -- those employers who offer birth control save about 16% of their health care costs because access to birth control does prevent problems. you prevent disease. let me conclude with this -- women in this country are tired of being treated like a political football by republicans in congress who are continuing to try to take away their benefits, to take away their rights. now, they tried to stop health

care reform. they said to women if you want to be treated equally when it comes to cost -- they tried to take away free breast cancer screenings. just last week we were all talking about that. now they are taking away and they want to take away -- we will not allow them -- their right to birth control. women deserve to be respected. they do not want a congressman or senator telling you what to think and what to do. here is something else you need to know -- 335,000 churches are exempted from this requirement to offer free birth control. 335,000 employers. these are the churches.

their religious freedom is being respected. we want to make sure that the religious freedom of all americans are protected. that means the women who work for institutions which serve the general public. 98% of american women have used contraception in their lifetime. this is the 21st century. access to free birth control saves lives and saves money. i will say this -- republicans move to take this benefit away from american women and families, we will fight them. we will fight for the women and their families and their economic well-being and their good health. [cell phone rings]

that is the concluding music. patty murray will speak next and she will elaborate. we have done it before, will do it again. >> with the combined years of experience of everyone up here with me, i can tell you we have seen a lot of politic -- political attacks on women's rights. as time goes on the other side attempt to exploit women's writes for their own political gain, we hear the same excuses. every time we hear it is not an attack on women's healthar